#everything in the world is constructed by society which we also make

[sundays-mutt]

do you ever have a moment where you realize like. there's like not a single human being in the world above or below you like ever in any way. not really.

[literary-illuminati]

Book Review 68 - Babel by R. F. Kuang

Overview

I came to Babel with extremely little knowledge about the actual contents of the book but a deep sense of all the vibes swirling around its reception – that it was robbed of a Hugo nomination (if the author didn’t outright refuse it), that it’s probably the single buzziest and most Important sf/f release of 2022, that it was stridently political, and plenty more besides. I also went in having mostly enjoyed The Poppy War series and being absolutely enamoured by the elevator pitch of an alternate history Industrial Revolution where translation is literally magic. And, well-

It is wrong to say I hated this book, but only because keeping track of my complaints and starting organize this review in my head was entertaining enough to keep me invested in the reading experience.

The story is set in an alternate 1830s, where the rise of the British Empire relies upon the dominance of its translators, as it is the mixture of translation and silverworking, the inscription of match-pairs in different languages on bars of worked silver and the leveraging of the ambiguity and loss of meaning between them that fuels the world’s magic. The protagonist is pluckted from his childhood home in Canton after his family dies in a cholera outbreak and whisked away to the estate of Professor Lowell, an Oxford translator he quickly realized is his unacknowledged father. He’s made to choose an English name (Robin Swift) and raised and tutored as a future translator in service to the Empire.

The meat of the story is focused on Robin’s education in Oxford, his relationship with the rest of his cohort, and his growing radicalization and entanglement with the revolutionary Hermes Society. Things come to a head when in his fourth year the cohort is sent back to Canton to, well, help provoke the first Opium War, though none of them aware of that. The final act follows the fallout of that, by which I mean it lives up to the full title of “Or the Necessity of Violence: An Arcane History of the Oxford Translators' Revolution”.

To be clear, this was technically a very accomplished book. The writing never dragged and the prose was, if not exactly lyrical, always clear and often evocative. Despite the breadth of space and time the story covers, I never had any complaints about the pacing – and honestly, the ending was, dramatically speaking, one of the more natural and well-executed ones I’ve read recently. It’s very well-constructed.

All that being said – allow me to apologize for how the rest of this is mostly just going to be a litany of complaints. But the book clearly believes itself to be an important and meaningful work of political art, which means I don’t feel particularly bad about holding it to high standards.

Narrative Voice

To start with, just, dear god the tone. This is a book with absolutely zero faith in its audience’s ability to reach their own conclusions, or even follow the symbolism and implication it lays down. Every important point is stated outright, repeated, and all but bolded and underlined. In this book set in 1830s England there are footnotes fact-checking the imperialists talking heads to, I guess, make sure we don’t accidentally become convinced by their apologia for the slave trade? Everything is just relentlessly didactic, in a way that ended up feeling rather insulting even when I agreed with the points Kuang was making.

More than that, and this is perhaps a more subjective complaint but – for an ostensible period piece, the narrative voice and perspective just felt intensely modern? This was theoretically an omniscient third person book, with the narrative voice being pretty distinct from any of the actual characters – with the result that the implicit narrator was instead the sort of person of spends six hours a day getting into arguments on twitter and for this effort calls themselves a progressive activist. The identities of all the characters – as delivered by the objective narration – were all very neat and legible from the perspective of someone at a 2022 HR department listing how diverse their team was, which was somewhere between a tragic lost opportunity to show how messy and historical racial/ethnic/national identities are and outright anachronistic, depending. (This was honestly one of the bigger disappointments, coming from Kuang’s earlier work. Say what you will of The Poppy War series, the narration is with Rin all the way down, and it trusts the reader enough not to blink.) More than that it was just distracting – the narration ended up feeling like an annoying obstacle between me and the story, and not in any fun postmodern way either.

Characters

Speaking of the cast – they simply do not sound or feel like they actually grew up in the 19th century. Now, some modernization of speech patterns and vocabulary and moral commensense is just the price of doing business with mass market period pieces, granted, but still – no 19th century Anglo-Indian revolutionary is going use the phrase ‘Narco-military state’ (if for no other reason than we’re something like a century early for ‘narco-state’ to be coined as a term at all). An even beyond feeling out of time most of the characters feel kind of thinly sketched?

Or no, it’s not that the characters are thinly sketched so much as their relationships are. We’re repeatedly, insistently told that these four students are fast friends and closer than family and would happily die for each other, but we’re very rarely actually shown it. This is partly just a causality of trying to skim over a four-year university education in the middle third of one book, I think, but still – the good times and happy moments are almost always sort of skimmed over, summarized in the course of a paragraph or two that usually talk in terms of memories and consequences more than the relationships themselves. The points of friction and the arguments, meanwhile, are usually played out entirely on the page, or at least described in much more detail. In the end you kind of have to just take it as read that any of these people actually love each other, given that at least two of them seem to be feuding at any given point for the entire time they know each other.

Letty deserves some special attention. She’s the only white member of Robin’s cohort at Babel and she honestly feels like less of acharacter and more a collection of tropes about white women in progressive spaces? Even more than the rest, it’s hard to believe the rest of the class views her as beloved ride-or-die found family when essentially every time she’s on screen it’s so she can do a microagression or a white fragility or something. Also, just – you know how relatively common it is to see just, blatantly misogynistic memes repackaged as anti-racist because it specifies ‘white women’? There’s a line in this that almost literally says ‘Letty wasn’t doing anything to disprove the stereotype of woman as uselessly emotional and hysteric’.

Also, she’s the one who ends up betraying the other three and trying to turn them in when they turn revolutionary. Which is probably inevitable given the book’s politics, but as it happened felt like less of the shocking betrayal that it was supposed to be and more just, checking off a box for a dramatic reverse. Of course she turned on them, none of them ever really seemed to even like each other.

As a Period Piece

So, the book is set in the 1830s, in the midst of the industrial revolution and its social fallout, and the leadup to the First Opium War (which is, through the magic of, well, magic ,but also mercantilist economics, make into a synecdoche for British global dominion more broadly). On the one hand, the setting is impeccably researched, recent and relevant historical events are referenced whenever they would come up, and the footnotes are full to bursting with quotes and explanations of texts or cultural ephemera that’s brought up in the narration.

On the other, the setting doesn’t feel authentic in the slightest, the portrayal of the British Empire is bizarrely inconsistent, and all that richly researched historical grounding ends up feeling less like a living world and more like a particularly well-down set for a Doctor Who episode.

The story is incredibly focused around Oxford as a city and a university. There’s a whole author’s note about the research and slight changes made into its geography and I absolutely believe its portrayal as a physical location and the laws about how women were treated and how the different colleges were organized and all that is exactly as accurate as Kuang wanted them to be. The issue is really the people. With the exception of a few cartoonish villains who barely get more than a couple pages apiece, no one feels, sounds like, or acts like they actually belong in the 19th century. The racism the protagonists struggle with all feels much more 21st century than Victorian, and the frame of mind everyone inhabits still comes across more as ‘unusually blatantly racist Englishman’ than 19th century scholars and polymaths.

This is especially blatant as far as religion goes. It’s occasionally mentioned, sure enough, but to the extent anyone actually believes in Christianity it’s of a very modern and disenchanted sort – this is a society that sends out missionaries as a conscious tool of colonial expansion, not because of anything as silly or absurd as actually wanting to spread their gospel. Also like, it’s Oxford, in the nineteenth century. For all the racism the protagonists have to deal with, they should be getting so much more shit from ‘well-meaning’ locals and students trying to save their (one Muslim, one atheist, one probably Christian but black and protective of Haitian Vodou on a cultural level which would be more than enough) souls.

Or, and this is more minor, it is a central conceit of the whole finale that if a few (like, two) determined revolutionaries can infiltrate Babel they’ll be able to take the entire place hostage with barely any trouble. This is because the students and professors there are, basically, whimpy bookworms who’ll faint at the sight of blood and have no stomach for the sort of violence their work actually supports and drives. Which – look, I really don’t want to defend the ruling class of Victorian Britain here, but I’m not sure physical cowardice is really one of their failings, as a group? I mean, there’s an entire system of institutionalized child abuse in the boarding schools they went to to get them used to taking and dealing out violence and abuse. Basically every upper-class sport is thinly disguised military drill or ritual combat (okay, or rowing). Half of them would graduate to immediately running off and invading places for the glory of the queen. I’m not sure two sleep-deprived nerds with knives would actually have been able to cow the crowd here, is what I’m saying. (This would stick out less if the text wasn’t so dripping with contempt for them on precisely these grounds.)

Much less minor are our heroic revolutionaries themselves. And okay, this is more a matter of taste than anything but like – the Hermes Society is an illegal conspiracy of renegade current and former Babel scholars dedicated to using their knowledge of magic and access to university resources to oppose and undermine the British Empire in general and the work of the school in particular. Think Metternich’s worse nightmare, but in Oxford instead of Paris and focused on colonial liberation (continental Europe barely exists for the purposes of the book, Britain is Empire.) So! A secret society of professional revolutionaries in the heydey of just that, with a name that just has to be Hermetic symbolism, who concern themselves with both high politics and metaphysics.

They are just so very, very boring. This is the age of the Conspiracy of the Equals, the Carbonari, the Seasons! The literal Illumanti are still within living memory! Where’s the pageantry, the ritual, the grandiosity? The elaborate initiation rituals and oaths of undying loyalty? They’re so pragmatic, so humble, so (and I know I keep coming back to this) modern. It’s just such an utter wasted opportunity. Even beyond the level of aesthetics, these are revolutionaries with remarkably little positive ideology – the oppose colonialism and racism for reasons they take as self-evident and so don’t feel the need to theorize about it (and talk about them with the vocabulary of a modern activist, because of course they do), but they’re pretty much consciously agnostic as to what world should look like instead. They vaguely end up supporting a sort of petty-bourgeois socialism (in the Marxist sense), but the alliance with Luddites is essentially political convenience – they really don’t seem to have any vision of the future at all, either in England or the various places they claim as homelands.

On Empire and Industrialization

The story is set during the early nineteenth century, so of course the Industrial Revolution is a pretty core part of the background. The Silver Industrial Revolution, technically, since the Babellers translation magic is in this world a key and load-bearing part of it. Despite the addition of miracle-working enhancers and supports to its fundamental technology, the industrial revolution plays out pretty identically to history – right down to the same cities becoming hubs of industry, despite steam engines using enchanted silver instead of coal and thus, presumably, the entire economic and logistical system that brought this particular cities to prominence being totally unrecognizable. This is not a book that’s in any way actually about tracing how something would change history – which isn’t a complaint, to be clear, that’s a perfectly valid creative choice.

It does, however, make it rather galling that the single actually significant difference to history is that the introduction of magic turns the industrial revolution into a Legend of Zelda boss with a giant glowing weak point you can hit to destroy the whole enterprise.

On a narrative level, I get it – it simplifies things and allows for a far happier and more dramatic ending if destroying Babel is not just a symbolic act but also literally sends London Bridge falling down and scuttles the entire royal navy and every mill and factory in Britain. It’s just that I think that by doing so it trades away any chance for actually making interesting commentary on anti-colonial and -capitalist resistance. A world where a single act of spectacular terrorism really can destroy a modern empire is frankly so detached from our world that it ceases to be able to really materially comment upon it.

Like, the principle reason to not take the Luddites as your role models is not that they were morally vicious but that they were doomed – capitalism’s ability to repair damage to infrastructure and fixed goods is legitimately very impressive! Trying to force an entire ruling class not to adopt a technology that makes whoever commits to it tremendous amounts of money (thus, power) is a herculean task even when you have a state apparatus and standing army – adding an ‘off’ button to the lot of it just trades all sense of relevance for a satisfyingly cathartic ending.

(This is leaving untouched how the book just takes it as a given that the industrial revolution was a strictly immiserating force that did nothing but redistribute money from artisans to capitalists. Which certainly tracks as something people at the time would have thought but given how resolutely modern all the other politics in the work are rings really weirdly.)

All of which is only my second biggest issue with how the book presents its successful resistance movement. It all pales in comparison to making the Empire a squeamish paper tiger.

Like, the book hates colonialism in general and the British Empire in particular, the narrative and footnotes are filled with little asides about various atrocities and injustices and just ways it was racist or complicit in some particular atrocity. But more than that it is contemptuous of it, it views the empire as (as the cliche goes) a perpetually rotting edifice that just needs one good kick; that it persists only through the myth of its own invincibility, and has no stomach for violent resistance from within. Which is absolutely absurd, and the book does seem to know it on occasion when it off-handedly mentions e.g. the Peterloo Massacre – but a character whose supposed to be the grizzled cynical pragmatic revolutionary still spouts off about how slave rebellions succeed because their masters aren’t willing to massacre their own property. Which is just so spectacularly wrong on every axis its actually almost offensive.

More importantly, the entire final act of the story relies upon the fact that the British Empire would allow a handful of foreign students seize control of a vital piece of infrastructure for weeks on end and do nothing but try to wait them out as the national physically falls apart around them. Like, c’mon, there would be siege artillery set up and taking shots by the end of week two. As with the Oxford students, the Victorian elite had all manner of flaws – take your pick, really – but squeamishness wasn’t really one of them.

On Magic

So the magical system underlying the whole story is – you know how Machinaries of Empire makes imperial ideology and metaphysics literally magical, giving expert technicians the ability to create superweapons and destroy worlds provided that the Hexarchate’s subjects observe the imperial calendar of rites and celebrate its triumphs/participate in rituals glorying in the torture of its ‘heretics’? It’s not exactly a subtle metaphor, but it works.

Babel does something similar, except the foundational atrocity fueling the engine of empire on a metaphysical level is, like, cultural appropriation. As an organizing metaphor, I find this less compelling.

Leaving that aside, the story makes translation literally capable of miracle-working – which of necessity requires making ‘languages’ distinct natural categories with observable metaphysical boundaries. It then sets the story in the 19th century – the era of newborn nation states and education systems and national literatures, where the concept of the national-linguistic community was the obsession of the entire European intelligentsia. Now this is not a book concerned with how the presence of magic would actually have changed history, in the slightest, but like – given how fascinated it is by translation and linguistics you’d think the whole ‘a language is a dialect with a navy’ cliché would at least get a light mention (but then the book doesn’t really treat language as any more inherent or natural than it does any other modern identity category, I suppose.)

As an Allegory

Okay, so having now spent an embarrassing number of words establishing to my own satisfaction that the book really doesn’t work at all as a period piece, let us consider; what if it wasn’t trying to be?

A great many things about the book just fit much better if you take it as a commentary on the modern university with Victorian window-dressing. Certainly the driving resentment of Oxford as an institution that sustains itself and grows rich off the exploitation of international students it considers second-class seems far more apt applied to contemporary elite western schools than 19th century ones. Likewise the racism the heroes face all seems like the kind you’d expect in a modern English town rather than a Victorian one. I’m not well-versed enough on the economics of the city to know for sure, but I would wager that the gleeful characterization of Oxford as a city that literally starts falling to ruin without the university to support it was also less accurate in the 1830s than it is today.

Read like this, everything coheres much better – but the most striking thing becomes the incredible vanity of the book. This is a morality tale where the natural revolutionary vanguard with the power to bring global hegemony to its knees through nothing but witholding their labour are..students at elite western universities (not, I must say, a class I’d consider in dire need of having their egos boosted). The emotions underlying everything make much more sense, but the plot itself becomes positively myopic.

Beyond that – if this is a story about international students at elite universities, it does a terrible job of actually portraying them. Or, properly, it only shows a certain type; just about every foreign-born student or professor we meet is some level of revolutionary, deeply opposed in principle to the empire they work within. No one is actually convinced by the carrot of a life as an exploited but exceedingly comfortable and well-compensated technician in the imperial core, and there’s not really acknowledgement at all of just how much of the apparatus of international institutions and governments in the global south – including positions with quite a bit of real power – end up being staffed by exactly that demographic who just sincerely agree with the various ideological projects employing them. Kuang makes it far too easy on herself by making just about every person of colour in the books one of the good guys, and totally undersells how convincing hegemonic ideology can be, basically.

The Necessity of Violence

This is a pet peeve and it’s a very minor thing that I really wouldn’t bring it up if that wasn’t literally part of the title. But it is, so – it’s a plot point that’s given a decent amount of attention that Griffin (Robin’s secret older brother, grizzled professional revolutionary, his introduction to anti-colonialism) is blamed for murdering one of his classmates who had the bad luck to be studying while he was sneaking in to steal some silver – a student that was quite well-loved by the faculty and her very successful classmates, who have never forgiven him. Later on, it’s revealed that this is an utter rewriting of history, and she’d been a double agent pretending to let herself be recruited into the Hermes Society who’d been luring Griffin into an ambush when he killed her and escaped.

This is – well, the most predictable not-even-a-twist imaginable, for one, but also – just rank cowardice. You titled the book ‘the necessity of violence’, the least you can do is actually own it and show that violent resistance means people (with faces, and names, not just abstractions only ever talked about in general terms) who are essentially personally innocent are going to end up collateral damage, and people are going to hold grudges about it. Have some courage in your convictions!

Translation

Okay, all of that said, this isn’t a book that’s wholly bad, or anything. In particular, you can really tell how much of a passion Kuang has for the art and science of translation. The depth of knowledge and eagerness to share just about overflows from the page whenever the book finds an excuse to talk about it at length, and it’s really very endearing. The philosophizing about translation was also as a rule much more interesting and nuanced then whenever the book tried to opine about high politics or revolutionary tactics.

Anyways, I really can’t recommend the book in any real way, but it did stick in my head for long enough that I’ve now written 4,000 words about it. So at the very least it’s the interesting sort of bad book, y’know?

[pikahlua]

I mean at least with ochako, deku and shouto the author had them fight with the intention to try to save or understand himiko, tomura and touya. These characters were constructed under this little idea. But at the end none of them managed to do it and all the villains died as villains anyway and the ones that lived didn't change and afterwards the author decided to show a random kid being helped by an old lady as the proof of hero society changing or something. It felt cheap to me i guess.

"fight with the intention to try to save or understand himiko, tomura and touya" "But at the end none of them managed to do it"

...Do...do you really think they didn't manage to understand Himiko, Tomura, and Touya? Why? Why do you think that? I don't know how it could have been any clearer that understanding was achieved??

And I'm very concerned about this notion that "saving" these villains means they don't die and after surviving they completely change. Like, I'm sorry, but this confuses me the most about people who claim to be fans of the villains when they imply things like this. Think about what this would mean. Somehow these villains' grievances with society should have all been immediately and completely resolved and they change their tune like "Oops, guess I was wrong about everything ever! I love society now! Everything that happened to me was justified and I should never have complained! The heroes were right all along and I was just being silly! I will take steps for improving myself and rejoining this society that I used to hate because I mistakenly thought it wronged me!" Maybe that's not how you truly expected it to play out, but if Izuku, Ochako, and Shouto managed to talk-no-jutsu their villains in one go out of being villains, it would absolutely have come across that way. It would have been the message behind the culmination in Izuku and everyone "becoming the greatest heroes." It would have said yes, the status quo is good and correct, and people should just open up to the right people before they become villains and then they wouldn't be a problem for everybody.

What we get instead is the heroes coming to an understanding of what their villains' grievances are (again, why do you think this didn't happen?) and showing those villains that yes, there is at least one person in the world who understands them and wants to give them hope, that wants to make their lives easier. Tomura and Himiko both die with hope in their hearts. A piece of darkness inside each of the three of them is resolved by their respective heroes. Touya is granted his last wish to talk things out with his family before he dies. Himiko is faced with the question of incarceration or death, and she chooses death as a means of staying true to herself (i.e. her desire to never be caught, to live and die as she wants to). She also is able to live this new form of "love" in giving her blood to Ochako as she goes out. In destroying himself, Tomura also destroys the man who used him and was responsible for the existence of "that house" that represented all his trauma. Tomura also left a legacy for Spinner to continue in his absence and a question for Izuku to observe of society in the aftermath (which is why we see that moment with the old lady, who represented the legitimate grievance Tomura had with the society that failed to save him from AFO). All the villains maintain their LEGITIMATE grievances with society and refuse to bend to society's wishes, and thus their points, their ideals, their legacies live on. They endure within the hearts of others who are aggrieved by society, and they leave a stark impact on the heroes who couldn't change them. That's how we get Ochako dedicating her life to children's welfare. That's how we get Izuku telling all children they can be heroes whether or not they become pro heroes in the law enforcement system. That's how we get Shouto living a life where he can be and discover himself separate from the tainted legacy of his father. The lessons they take from their villains stay in their hearts forever because they are failures. Their failure was the point. They aren't perfect, they can't save everyone by themselves, they have to dedicate their lives to being the change society needs if they want to save more people, and their failures guide them in the directions where they can make that sort of impact.

Believe it or not, Crimson Riot says it best...

Yeah, that's right, the message has been prevalent in the story for a long time. It didn't come out of no where.

If the message feels cheap to you, I implore you (and EVERYONE) to engage in a thought exercise. Genuinely, try to imagine that someone in the world other than you finds the message of this story as not cheap but as earnest and meaningful and robust. Now imagine why this person would think that. What evidence is there in the manga that they would use to support it? What meaning would they derive from this ending? Try to understand the opposite point of view. Try to honestly engage with the text in this way. Horikoshi devoted a decade of his life to telling this story. Sure, some of it probably suffered from bad editing and weird changes due to elongating the story at times. It was a big story with a giant cast, and that can be a lot for any one person to manage perfectly over the course of 10 years. Maybe there are parts of the story that aren't as tight or clean as they could be. But, in good faith, please try to imagine WHY Horikoshi felt this story needed to be told. Try to imagine what message Horikoshi wanted to convey that matters to him. Don't just dismiss the ending out of hand because it doesn't immediately click for you. I think it's great you asked me about it, and I hope my answer gives you more to think about.

[fandomspacenqueue]

Transformers One has been living rent free in my brain for the last few weeks. It's definitely one of my favorite movies of the year and I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. I just wanted to ramble about some cool things that caught my attention here. Spoilers for the entire movie, and also I am pretty much completely unfamiliar with any other Transformers media apart from one or two of the live action movies, so everything in this post applies to Transformers One only.

First, the juxtaposition between Orion Pax and D-16's respective ascensions to becoming Optimus Prime and Megatron. Orion is deemed worthy by Primus, the god of the Cybertronians himself, due to his act of self sacrifice for the greater good. D-16, on the other hand, takes Megatronus Prime's cog by force, essentially deeming himself worthy. Which isn't inherently a negative thing, except his actions both before and after doing so are incredibly self-serving. He brutally kills Sentinel Prime without any semblance of trial or due process, prioritizing his own desire for revenge over rebuilding their society, even killing his own best friend who was pleading with him to consider the bigger picture. Megatron then doubles down on this when he orders the destruction of the city's infrastructure, putting innocents in harm's way and even looking like he might kill Bee and Elita, his friends, when they try to intervene. In fact, this makes him a direct parallel to Sentinel Prime, who also seized power for his own sake and whose actions were also destructive toward other Cybertronians. Like sure, tearing down every vestige of a corrupt regime might feel cathartic, but in the end it isn't constructive. It doesn't do anything to make the world better. Revolution is only as good as what it intends to install in the place of what was formerly in power.

In fact, there were already hints of where D-16 and Orion would end up in the scene after they see the truth of Sentinel Prime. Orion says he's focusing on what their next move should be, but D-16 berates him for getting them into this situation in the first place, accusing Orion of only thinking about himself. D-16 frames Orion's attitude negatively, but I would argue that this is precisely what makes Orion a good leader. Prioritizing the things that one can control, namely one's own actions and responses to external circumstances, is how we can change our future, whereas merely focusing on what happens to us or what others do to us, which we can't control, is an exercise in futility. Sure, Orion might be a little reckless at times, but his heart is always in the right place and he always takes responsibility for his own actions. He tells Darkwing that he was the one who broke protocol in the mines and he tells Sentinel that joining the race was his idea, fully expecting to be punished both times. And while doing the right thing can lead to negative consequences, especially in an oppressive system, they're clearly still worth doing. Even Elita, who got demoted because Orion broke protocol to rescue Jazz, eventually admits that saving Jazz's life was a net positive and rightfully took precedence.

That scene also showed something interesting, that D-16 might actually prefer living a comfortable lie to knowing the terrible truth of his reality. He gets angry at Orion for leading them down the path of learning the truth, despite the objective misery of their and the other miners' lives, because he was apparently advancing within the ranks of the system by following the rules and is upset that it's now revealed to have been all for nothing. He scoffs at the idea of revealing the truth to the rest of the city, claiming that no one wants to know the truth, but it's clearly just him projecting when it turns out that everyone immediately turns against Sentinel when the truth is revealed in the climax. This goes a long way to explaining why he persists in setting himself and the newly branded Decepticons against Optimus Prime at the end, despite himself acknowledging that Optimus is very much the real deal with Primus' undeniable approval in the form of the Matrix of Leadership. Megatron is so convinced of his own righteousness that he'll invent a conspiracy that doesn't exist to avoid confronting the reality that he might've been in the wrong. (Not to mention it's a little hypocritical for Megatron to go "No leader can be trusted. Except me, you should all follow me.")

I've also seen some speculation on why the High Guard didn't interfere when D-16 was challenging Starscream but tried to help Megatron fight Optimus, that maybe they just really believed in Megatron's strength or were themselves disillusioned with the "Age of Primes" as Megatron had put it. I think there's a simpler explanation: Megatron is a clear believer in their "might makes right" philosophy and was playing by their rules when he challenged Starscream. Whereas Optimus might well be mightier than Megatron, but he definitely does not subscribe to their beliefs and would not allow the High Guard to push anyone around no matter how tough they are. And it's hardly like they were knights in shining armor when they were first introduced, appearing more than a little like bullies to be quite honest. Just fighting against the bad guy Sentinel Prime doesn't necessarily make them good guys.

Honestly, Orion Pax/Optimus Prime is just so good. He's the one who goes back for Bee when the latter stumbles while they're all running from the Quintessons, he's the only one to protest when Alpha Trion tells them to leave him behind while they flee, and he never holds himself above anyone, willingly allowing Elita and D-16 to take the lead, kneeling down so he can speak to the other miners as equals after he's gained a cog and became a "transformer," and expressing his sincere gratitude to Elita and Bee for all their help and acknowledging that he'll continue to rely on them. His very first act as a Prime after defeating Megatron and the High Guard is to restore the flow of Energon and the miners' stolen cogs. He declares that "freedom and autonomy are the rights of all sentient beings," proclaiming himself a protector for all his people, no matter which faction they might've belonged to, against the Quintessons and any other external threats. Truly there could be no worthier successor to the title of "Prime."

I love this movie so much. Definitely looking forward to any sequels that might follow.

[thewritetofreespeech]

Could I request Ichigo, Grimmjow, and Uryu with a witch s/o?

*heavily based on Burn the Witch series, which is a spin-off from Bleach also by Kubo. Instead of Soul Society being the Reverse London counterpart in Japan, there is a Reverse Tokyo: specializing in the protection, containment or concealment, or eradication if necessary of yokai*

As with most things in Ichigo’s life, it seems, they met by chance.

While he was dealing with a Hollow, they were dealing with a demon drawn to the dark or melancholy energy that deceased spirits trapped in the world. They fight their respective opponents with one another’s support and become fast friends.

Ichigo is fascinated that there is yet another world he doesn’t know about. He takes the knowledge that yokai are real in stride. He’s never seen one, but that doesn’t mean things aren’t real. He’s stoked we he gets to meet one of the less hazardous, furry plush yokai that they keep as a pet.

The two of them get closer over being so young and saving humanity in secret. S/O teaches them a few ‘normie spell’ that they can also use in combat. And Ichigo teaches them a few direct combat moves.

Uryu is a little more versed in the ‘Reverse Tokyo’ existence. His grandfather and Quincy in general were more invested on learning all about any mortal allies they could have against the Shinigami. Witches being one of them.

Unlike the others, they also bond over being born into this. In most cases, you must be born with magical abilities to past the test to become a full Witch. Much like Quincy.

The construct of their powers is similar as well and they trade notes on how to best to focus their spiritual pressure or magic through their weapons.

Uryu finds their dedication to their magical studies very attractive. The few books that they have let him see have very complex principals and doctrine that goes over his head a lot of the time, which makes them all the more sexy.

He’s never met a witch before, and in his case it doesn’t matter. Humans are just all weak anyway. Their little toys and hand wavy gestures are no match for the true power of an Arrancar.

Or so he thinks, until he’s caged in a weaker version of #68 and they refuse to let him out until he apologizes.

It’s love at first fight.

Grimmjow becomes obsessed with s/o and their newly discovered abilities (at least newly discovered for him). He has to know everything about this power and how he can get it to become stronger.

Second best option: keep s/o around forever so he can use it by proxy.

[agronzky]

⠀⠀⠀𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐀 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐕𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍 𝐈𝐍 𝐑𝐏.

⠀⠀⠀Anyone who knows me or has rp with me knows how much I love building ambiguous — or grey, if you prefer — characters or villains. The drama, the chaos, the complex plot… It all makes everything more interesting, especially once you get bored of characters who are exclusively nice, naive and suchlike. Even so, it's a construction that needs to take several factors into account and be very delicately written so it doesn't become a trigger rather than a character.

⠀⠀⠀For this reason, below I've provided some tips on how to create villainous characters for rp, taking into account various traits, setting and also demystifying the fact that not every villain is a soulless monster. Anyway, on to the guide.

Deep and personal motivations.

⠀⠀⠀Convincing villains usually have compelling and understandable motivations, even if their actions are highly questionable. It's the premise of them being right in their quest, but using the wrong means to achieve it and ultimately losing their reason. This brings a sense of humanity and it's even possible to feel connected to what led this person to become a villain. You can truly see how they lost the way.

⠀⠀⠀Another point is the fact that not everyone wants to conquer the world, nor do they have the ambition to have a lot of money or power. Think of plots about revenge, twisted love, the quest for justice or fear. Generally, a character's deepest motivations give them more determination to fulfill their goals because it comes from something much more internal and traumatic. Give them a proper reason and make them lose the way, this is gonna make everything feel real, convincing and interesting to developed.

Moral complexity.

⠀⠀⠀The simple truth is the days of people liking completely cartoonish characters are long gone, and nowadays many people don't like those who are evil simply for the sake of being evil. This is because it's too out of touch with reality. Obviously there are people who are like that in real life, but the vast majority is more complex than this. Humans, in the end, are very complicated and, probably, will never truly understand why we are the way we are.

⠀⠀⠀To get away of this cliché and cartoonish form when creating your character, try to develop moral nuances and internal dilemmas which can explain their actions. Put a small fragment of morality in the character, make them question themselves a few times as to whether they're on the right path… Remember yin yang: there's a little tiny good inside the evil. This tip can be used for any character, when you think about it, but it's very important for those who want to create villains.

Human traits, personality and vulnerabilities.

⠀⠀⠀Like any human being, provide your character with traits unmistakably human, such as fears, insecurities or personal relationships that will impact them, to make them more realistic. Just because someone is doing something morally wrong doesn't mean they've lost all touch with their humanity, especially since not every villain is a psychopath who has no empathy for anyone. It's always very interesting when a character believes they're doing what's right or good for someone else, and this is their motivation. 

⠀⠀⠀Also bring some weaknesses to the character, whether physical, emotional or psychological. This provides room for development and also ways for other characters to access them in a more specific way, either to get to know them better or to retaliate against them at some point.

⠀⠀⠀You know that line "Do you like my personality? I created it especially for you!"? Well, consider how the character behaves and bring in more layers when making the personality. Take into account how they behave in different situations and with different people.

Charisma and a magnetic nature.

⠀⠀⠀The fact is that bad guys aren't unbearable one hundred per cent of the time, they need to know how to live in society and captivate people. So define unique and appealing traits for the character, whether they're genuine or merely a façade. It's always interesting when, within the plot, most people don't know about the evil or wrong side of a character because it gives them more room for development. Maybe make them ashamed of what they're doing and try to hide it as best they can. And just think about real life: do we truly know the people around us?

Connection with other characters.

⠀⠀⠀Nobody lives completely alone since we're in a society and this makes us having connections, for more simple they can be. Thinking about that, create connections with other characters to bring more motivation and drama to your muse, such as an old rivalry, a complicated personal relationship or a surprising connection which generates tension. You can also create connections that actually bring their good side to light, you know? It's also always good to add a certain complexity, to have troubled moments, wounds that haven't healed fully, secrets being revelead, etc.

Questions for creating villains.

What are the character's main motivations?

What is the character's origin story? What led them to become what they are today?

What are the past traumas or events that have shaped their worldview?

How does the character justify their actions morally? Does they believe they are doing the right thing?

What are their weaknesses and vulnerabilities?

How does the character present themselves to the world? Are they masked, manipulative or showy?

What do they want to achieve through their actions?

What are their emotional reactions to obstacles and challenges?

How do they justify their actions to themselves? Is there any sense of internal validation?

How do they relate to the authorities or the law?

How do they see themselves? Do they see themselves as the hero of their own story?

How do they react when their plans fail?

What do they feel when faced with the possibility of redemption or change?

Other small (and important) advice!

Corruption arcs are also super interesting, leading a good character to become bad over time and through traumatic situations. Redemption arcs are also sensational. The point is: nobody was born a villain and nobody has to die a villain.

Leave clues indicating your character before fully revealing your motivations. Also try to leave some motivations completely secret, using them when the plot calls for a surprise. In the best "surprise, bitch!" style.

Think about how environment and culture can influence beliefs and actions.

A villain doesn't have to be a psychopath or murderer. There are arcs of revenge and corruption which can be created without going to such extremes.

It's obvious, but always respect other players and the limits they impose. As I said, a villain isn't always doing evil and being a complete asshole, so make sure you know what kind of approach the other person will prefer.

Always be careful when approaching topics which are triggers and avoid them as much as possible. As I said, it's not necessary to go down this route, but if you do, always keep a firm grounding when writing, because triggers are complex real-life situations that always need to be handled delicately.

The end, for now.

( Be with Morgana, my good girl gone bad ♡ )

[confuselibrarian]

Haunting Adeline is bad.

It only gained hype because of the controversial themes because the construction is crap. A poorly written book with shameful dialog and characters shallower than the drain in my sink. The book makes an effort to be profound, showing how cruel and dark the world is, but in the end it tries so hard that it's more like those One Direction fics kidnapping Y/N. Adeline herself as the protagonist seems to have come straight out of a Wattpad self insert. It's also unnecessarily long. There's no justification for this story being 600 pages long, let alone a sequel. If you take away all the unnacessary bullshit, the whole duology could fit into a single book.

Such a long book, but it still fails to introduce us to the basic concepts of the characters. So many things are poorly explained that they basically expect readers to accept just “because...”? For example, Zade's motivation? I finished the book without understanding his backstory and why he would go so far to do what he does. “That's because he's angry about the existence of child trafficking”, congratulations Zade, you're a normal person who is outraged by child violence, so what? One person finding abuse wrong (which in itself is ironic when it comes to Zade, given what he does to Adeline) isn't enough to justify everything he does. He ends up being the author's puppet for action and smuty kinky scenes, rather than a complex character.

Speaking of kinky, I see a lot of people (including the author apparently) who don't know the basic difference between fetish and abuse. All fetish and kinks, including cnc, needs to be done in a healthy, safe and consensual way. These are the basics of the practice and are non-negotiable. Practically all the sex scenes in this book that take place between Adeline and Zade fall into the dub-con (dubious consent) spectrum. Whether it's because he's forced himself on her, coerced her, manipulated her, etc., from the lightest to the heaviest, all the sex between them has a non-consensual aspect in addition to the disparity of power in the relationship that was not negotiated between them. So you can't use the excuse that it's a fetish so anything goes, because that's simply not the reality. If you let go of the dark romance for a second and actually research how this works, you'll quickly realize that the way this book deals with fetish is extremely off the mark.

Lastly, there's the issue of human/child trafficking. I see a lot of people criticize how graphic the scenes are, which for me wasn't a problem, but very few people talk about how the vision portrayed in the book refers to a line of thought that connect whit the crazy right-wing american conspiracy theorist mentality . Whenever there was a scene involving violence against children, I had the impression that H.D Carlton had studied the subject on the QAnom forum. Anyone who does the slightest bit of research on the subject knows that the main victims of this kind of violence are not the white suburban American children of the traditional family, as we see repeatedly portrayed through Zade's missions. It's not a black van that springs up in an upper-middle-class neighborhood and steals away a beloved child while their parents cry copiously over the loss. Those who are targeted are usually non-white, disabled children from very poor areas who are generally forgotten by the system. Not to mention that the book kind of implies that most of the guys involved in the dirty work of kidnapping the children are Mexicans and mestizos. These are the people we see Zade, the white guy, fighting against to save the day. Also I'm not Jewish so I can't say 100%, but the way the author constructed the secret society plus all the strange and conspiracy-oriented things in the book gave me an anti-Semitic vibe. The secret society in this book is literally a ctrl+c ctrl+v of Blood Libel. Maybe I'm going too far with my interpretation, but considering that the author literally had to put a disclaimer at the beginning that she has no connection with conspiracy theory groups, I don't think I'm so wrong to notice parallels.

[bugtransport]

been thinking about "as far as i'm concerned all robots are transgender" for a couple days because when am i not thinking about robots. but also i don't want to write an essay on someone else's post so i'm doing it myself. i think there's a simple explanation for this one: there's an additional axis that you have to consider when you're considering the gender expression of non-human entities and that's how human or non-human they can and want to appear and be recognized as. i call it the humanity axis. 

("humanity" is an oversimplification - a lot of the times when you're discussing robots you're talking about them in the context of a sci-fi story which some of the time can have robots living in largely non-human societies (for an easy silly example off the top of my head think BMO who lives with exactly one human for most of his life) but even then we're contending with the gender dynamics of the organic beings around them that make up the society they're based in. not to mention that we ourselves as humans view and create everything from a human-centric point of view that's kind of inescapable imo. for the sake of getting through this with any kind of coherency i'm going to use the term "humanity")

the closest thing that i can imagine to be what i would consider a “cisgender robot” would be a robot that was created by robots in a world where humans don’t have an influence. this can’t really be the case – robots being inorganic have to be created by some outside being and therefore will always be formed in the image of the societal opinions of their makers. you’re working with a blank slate here; you don’t have to be bogged down by what evolution might just decide on its own. sure, they can in turn create their own robots that may be influenced by other factors and get further and further removed from their original designs, but that begs the question of whether it’s possible to dilute the original influence far enough to where it’s no longer a factor. personally, i don’t think so? 

so, we can agree: every robot has the influences of humanity in them but is still distinctly different, creating the humanity axis. there’s a place that they each physically on there depending on how they were constructed; there’s also a choice each of them must make as to how much they want to adhere to their assigned spot. to fully be human is not an option, as they would have to not know they’re a robot, and to be fully robot isn’t an option either, as they were made by humans. i suppose you could be happy with your assigned place on the humanity axis but you could never truly be viewed by the organic society around you as anything but “other” unless you tried to fully pass as human. then we can bring in characters who never had to consider the humanity axis until, well, circumstances changed (things like cyborgs or mind backups or a good ol’ brain in a jar) and now they have to learn that they actually experienced a kind of privilege that they weren’t even really aware of until they had to question their relationship to their humanity. they don’t even have to view it as a bad thing – it’s not a bad thing. you can be very confident and happy with who you are and your status outside the traditional human framing of whatever society you’re in. being othered isn’t always a bad thing and some can take solace in the fact that they’re able to dictate who they are without having to technically abide by whatever norms biology has been divided into. it lends itself easily to exploring beyond what’s been set out for you from the start. not always, not every robot wants that or cares to explore it, but it can. 

a robot can be a girl and inhuman; they can have no relationship to human gender and identify very closely with humanity. it's about the interactions with those that made you. it's about having to dictate who you are for yourself. tl;dr: yeah every robot is transgender

[psychabolition]

I wonder what full youth liberation would look like in our society

Abolishing school

I think it would include abolishing school and university and instead only learning from others of all ages and at a pace that fits each person. and we would learn about the things that are important for every day life and for sustaining our communities and /or things that simply interest us . "Learning" wouldnt be associated with a specific age range anymore either . It would just be something that people do, no matter their own age and no matter the age of the person theyre learning from. No grades,no academic pressure ,no competition with others and no learning and passing tests by yourself . No threat of exclusion from your peers if you dont perform and conform well enough anymore (by having to retake a school year or being kicked out of school or not finishing school for example) .

Abolishing the nuclear family

Youth liberation would also definitely include abolishing the nuclear family . No one should be legal property of another person. And you should not have to obey someone else at all or be forced to see someone else as inherently "superior in knowledge" or even as someone whos orders and rules you shouldnt question but blindly follow (this goes double for teachers and psychologists and the state).

Free housing and free association which is made possible and provided by an actual community and not by a nuclear family

No one should be isolated away from others in the nuclear family unit anymore .everyone should be able to move and associate freely with others (and stay with the people they like and feel safe with) without fear of homelessness or general fear of not having a future in their society/community .

Free spaces to chill and meetup in and have privacy with anyone and whenever you want to

Also there would be a lot of place and space in this world for everyone of all ages . Its awful that most "public" places arent for free and that you also never really have any "privacy" as an adolescent/child . Like there should just be lots of space to chill out inside and outside that we provide for each other thats freely available and where there arent rules or people ("authorities ") to obey .

Reimagining what it means to "depend on others"

As a teenager and as a young adult everyone consistently tells you that its bad to depend on others and that you "should learn to be independent" . Sorry to break this illusion but we already all live in interdependence . Do you personally know how to make your own clothing and food, built your own house and perform your own surgery when needed ? I'd even go so far as to say that most of us go insane when faced with isolation even if we have enough food+water+a roof over our heads .The only way that one person is dependent on another and the other person is "responsible" for the dependent one is societally and socially constructed by dehumanizing hierarchies- a worker depends on their boss, a child on their parents, a disabled person on their "caretaker" etc🙄 . We should just be normal and do everything we can for those of us that are important for us and they do the same in return . And yes this would include medical care for each other . All the knowledge we need about medical care, clothing, house building , ... already exists in our communities .It doesnt come from outside of them . Interdependence will give us freedom , not independence.

Abolish the state+ police+ prisons+ psychiatry

Also hot take but Legalize Everything . Why tf are you criminalized and pathologized as a teen/adolescent/child to such an insane extend . ACAB .Fuck the state . Free all those who are incarcerated (this explicitly includes "childrens homes" ,psychiatric wards and prisons for adolescents ) .

[centrally-unplanned]

Saw some discussions of people "taking down" Karl Polanyi's 1944 The Great Transformation in response to some other articles mentioning it, which is always amusing to me because its a very dead horse to beat. In short, Polanyi was the founder of the "markets-as-modernity" idea, where before the modern era states and economies did not function on supply and demand, but instead on things like gift and reciprocity. It was never a very coherent idea (Supply and demand is an inherent aggregating feature of human society) but direct evidence has compounded with logic to relegate it into the past. His ideas that say ancient Babylon had centralized prices built around temple donations has been set aside in the face of the evidence of incredibly complex exchange economies that ran through Mesopotamia - we even see things like derivative contracts! Because of course you do, financial risk is inherent to economics, so societies will experiment around mitigating it.

There is a perfectly coherent "steelmanned" version of this idea that is quite robust today - markets are always with us and were never invented, but they are also socially constructed and their scope changes based on context, with a large modern expansion. Did the Roman Empire have a market for wages, alongside goods? Yes, of course it did - but that market was quite "distorted" by the mass-scale slavery endemic to the economy. Slave vs free labor economies both have "markets" and function alongside them, but for the actual lived human experience these are night and day systems, and based on deep social institutions, not at all "inherent abstract forces". Lots of societies had differences like this - sometimes ancient governments did try to dictate prices! They failed, but they tried, its a difference.

And more broadly under low-productivity systems most people engaged in subsistence farming, and interacted minimally with trade systems. If most of your economic "units" don't engage in trade, the markets don't matter as much, but over time this changed, and as more and more people "entered" the market that is both a change in itself and created knock-on effects in urbanization, specialization, financial institutions, etc, that is totally fair to describe as a "transformation". Starting in the 18th century its very clear the world began a rapid shift to specialization & wage labor in a way never seen before, its a new society in many ways.

Problem is none of this steelman is anywhere close to what Polanyi was saying. He was definitely claiming that market exchanges and supply and demand price shifting and all that were optional, and could be (and historically were) replaced by gifts or redistribution policies or the like. He is just wrong about this and there is no reason to bother trying to rehabilitate it. Doesn't make him wrong about everything! States definitely also "constructed" markets and put a lot of work into that, for example, a big point of his. But you see the "pre-market era of history" pop up in discourse, journalism, politics, etc from time to time, and as an economic historian its always a groan moment. No one is debating this anymore.

[dailyanarchistposts]

What are some anarchist critiques of humanism?

alc

Humanism facilitates ecological collapse. Belief in the right of human supremacy over all other species (whether explicitly for domination or under the guise of stewardship) has brought us to the brink of an ecological collapse that will lead to a world of polluted wastelands and destroy most species on Earth, including the human species. Divorc-ing ourselves from values of aliveness, wildness, and regeneration has achieved disastrous consequences for the majority of the human species as well as all other species on Earth and all known habitats.

Humanism furthers alienation. Belief in human separation from “nature” has forced humanism us into a roles that foster neuroses and madness; an alienated existence inflicts increasing psychological and spiritual harm to we who live and more and more in a sterile, deadened, mechanical, symbolic world of control.

Humanism believes in speciesist Dominion. The social construct of property arises from a humanist perspective that treats other species and landbases only as utilitarian to certain humans rather than possessing even the most rudimentary levels of intrinsic worth (spirituality), self-ownership (philosophy), consideration for ecological contribution (functionalism), or belief that they have no superior or subordinate value (nihilism/egoism).

Humanism rationalizes abuse. To do this humanists arbitrarily elevate some measure (eg intellect, rationality, tool use) or content (eg soul, nervous system) to justify authoritarian behavior toward anyone classified as external. Such criteria change to rationalize the desire for authoritarian behavior as desired. Humanism makes excuses and rationalizations for human behaviors toward other species (slavery, extermination) that humanists would never concede to other entities (e.g. aliens or ma-chines) with greater of even the agreed-upon measures or contents. It’s an identity defense system, not a moral truth.

Humanism speaks the Myth of Progress. Humanists almost always believe in the Myth of Progress, the belief that the state of humanity is always positively improving socially or technologically in a straight, forward, unidirectional line toward utopia, or at least claim this pattern has occured so far with the development of the Neolithic Revolution. Humanists believe that no other species does this, that humans are the subject and consciousness of the cosmos, and therefore everyone and everything else is an resource to exploit.

Humanism acts as the modern religious authority. Humanism replaces God at the throne of authority with a particular and unquestioned image of the human species (the rational, productive man), and creates a new clerical class of scientists, technicians, bureaucrats, and others that mediate and divvy out Progress.

Humanism has racist, colonialist mythology and history. Humanism has constructed myths of an external environment and demonizes a concept of nature that it perceives as hostile to human aims. Humanism therefore has easily accommodated racism, as it is anti-nature and therefore to some extent anti-any-ethnicity-that-resembles-nature, such as savages, witches, barbarians, cavemen, Indians, Negroes, and supported those who embody a struggle against nature, such as pilgrims, pioneers, mountain men, Victorian-era masculine hetero males, Western scientists, who just happened to also be the colonizers.

Humanism hates wildness. Humanists usually love the features of urban society that biotically cleanse landscapes to replace them with monuments to the greatness of Man and and testaments to the glory of Industry, artifacts of repression.

Humanism hates aliveness. Humanists usually posses an intense attachment to mass society and technophilia and drawdown of non-renewables, and false notions that “Everything is natural” or “That which is natural is subordinate”, and “Technology is neutral”. On a spectrum of (a) all life-forms and landbases have value, to (b) only humans and their settlements and artifacts and symbols have value, to (c) only industrial technology has value, humanists are a lot closer to (c) than they’d like to admit, and have justified or rationalized the eradication or subjugation of “backward” peoples and entire species or habitats for increasing technical complexity (see: Marxists, transhumanists). For the most part, humanists today can more easily come to terms with having no more traditional indigenous people on Earth, no more migratory songbirds on Earth, no more old growth forests on Earth, than having no more com-puters on Earth.

Humanism inherits ignorance & arrogance. Humanist rhetoricians therefore often just cloak colonialism and dominion, taking them for granted or ap-plauding them without giving room to radical critiques of their origins, histories, and trajectories, and in fact suppressing dissidents historically.

Humanism acts as another concept of sacrifice for control.

Stirner: How is it with mankind, whose cause we are to make our own? Is its cause that of another, and does mankind serve a higher cause? No, mankind looks only at itself, mankind will promote the interests of mankind only, mankind is its own cause. That it may develop, it causes nations and individuals to wear themselves out in its service, and, when they have accomplished what mankind needs, it throws them on the dung-heap of history in gratitude.

Humanism has a cold heart. Some anarchists have trouble confining our humanism position to slavery and extermination to just 1 in 8,700,000 species, during a mass extinction no less.

[aita-blorbos]

AITA for freeing my world and attempting to do the same with my best friend's?

I (Nby) used to live in a very close-minded world where I felt trapped and was looked down upon by most people for my social status alone, among a number of other reasons. However, I eventually gained the power to change my world for the better and did so, before moving onto another one and making some friends on the way. Unfortunately, we ended up trapped in the new place which on top of that was also slowly falling apart. So I planned to merge this new world with another, which would not only allow myself and my friends to escape the decaying world, but would also allow me to liberate yet another world like I did for my own.

For this pupose, I contacted and befriended a scientist (M) who had the skill to construct a machine that would connect our worlds. I even helped him with the blueprints and everything and had promised him that he'd change the world with this project, but I noticed that another friend of his who joined the project became skeptical. He eventually quit the project as did, unfortunately, my best friend.

After this betrayal, my best friend then put a considerable amount of time and effort into trying to kill me to stop me from going through with my plans. Despite this, I expressed towards him that I was still willing to forgive and work alongside him again. But he only kept working against me.

I'm now well on my way to finally go through with my goal, but there's a last obstacle. I'm considering reaching out to my friend again and ask him for the solution and hopefully finally making him understand the benefits and the freedom this project would bring to him and his world, especially because I'm aware he has some similar experiences as myself when it comes to being ostracized by the society surrounding him, but I worry that he'll still reject me once again. AITA?

[astrolavas]

i think it’s kind of interesting with the hexside tracks convo. i actually think construction magic is the only coven-specific type of magic we’ve ever seen hunter do? with that big earth fist he whacked amity with in eclipse lake. i don’t know if that would be an argument for or against him taking it as a class, but i feel like everything else we’ve ever seen him do is like,, not tied to a coven besides that one spell

(this is related to this old post but i put the answer in my drafts and the option of posting it vanished from my memory lmao)

tbh that IS true, i forgor it can be technically considered construction magic kxjsjks

i feel like there are so many spells and different "sub magic types" and magic courses that are kinda unclear which track they'd be taught at or where they fall under, especially since there are some tracks/magic types that we've only seen used in a very general way; like construction or oracle. we've seen manyyyy possibilities for some tracks, like abomination (like what darius vs alador vs amity can do, how differently it can be used) or bard (how at first glance it just feels like a "yeah we use instruments to fight and do spells" but then we also find out how much you can truly do with it and how much actually falls under bard magic through raine) or illusions (everything that gus, and graye, have been shown to do) etc. but some tracks/covens we have really just been kinda... shown from a very surface level lol

hell, i still wonder why anyone would ever choose a potion coven in a world during belos' reign, where you have to choose to only have one magic type, because... from all we've seen it seems like in order to make potions you don't really need any magic (having magic can help but it's not necessarily needed) so what magic DO you get??? you have to get something (maybe magic that can assist you in making potions?) but we have no clear idea what. also considering how oftentimes potion-making is also tied in with other magic types (like plants or healing or beast-keeping) it almost feels like it should be a sub-type of each magic or an addition rather than its own thing. BUT KXJSHSK YEAH like, we don't know! i wish it was more clearly fleshed out in the show.

there's also the fact that now that belos is gone, the society is able to take back their culture and history and practices that were lost to time and as we can see in the epilogue they're actively working on making the boiling isles less... belos-influenced. they're working on that process of decolonization and it's going to be a long LOOONG while until traces of belos' impact completely disappear, but there are already clear changes. the sky is clear again (just like it was in the "savage ages" - a contrast to the pollution we see in the emperor's coven era), palismen are being carved again and palistroms are coming back from being endangered, selkidomus is doing good, the once a police precinct in latissa is now a hospital and the hostile architecture around it (the spikes) is gone, there's now a way to remove sigils and everyone is free to pursue whatever they want. the society is healing. etc.

and covens, magic being split into these clear subtypes- was not ever really something natural. like yeah, there ARE magic types that seem very clearly "thematic" like you can very clearly separate bard magic from plant magic, and a witch can be naturally skilled in a particular thing (like willow or gus) but there are also some spells that overlap and some that seemingly don't fit into any covens at all. belos made up covens in order to limit witches' bodily autonomy and control their abilities, in order to seem more powerful and to create this structure of power. so i imagine that if you are in a coven, in any coven, there are spells that don't quite fit any of them, or some that fit all.

i. ngl i completely derailed the ask and forgot where i was going with this LMAO but yeah

[wordsandrobots]

I may have read Wishing on Space Hardware a while ago, but I’m still absolutely floored by how good a writing decision it was on your part to get rid of the Ahab production facilities! Like yes that’ll change the entire solar system unpredictably AND weaken Gjallarhorn! A N D your characterization for Almeria was perfect for that decision!!!

:D

[Spoilers for WoSH and Iron-Blooded Orphans in general to follow; I'm not especially fussed about people knowing what's coming but if you want to go in blind to my fics, please stop here.]

I can't remember when I settled on that as the big plan. It must have begun brewing while I was writing A Handful of Rusted Petals, though the exact shape of the plot only properly took shape with The Ares Affair. Probably the wheels started turning as soon as I learned the peripheral detail that Gjallarhorn controls manufacture of the series' resident 'magic physics' black boxes.

Because while it's never relevant and Iron-Blooded Orphans never positions Gjallarhorn as something to be destroyed (we're arguing over who gets to run the armed wing of the empire, here), there is something tempting about realising their power is resting on an economic lynchpin like that. Even within the narrow sliver of the world we get to see, it's clear Ahab reactors are vital to space-faring society and an Earth reliant on space-based manufacturing. It's also clear the blocs aren't passively under Gjallarhorn's thumb -- they have their own agendas that align or conflict with that oversight by turns. The whole thing with mobile suit stockpiles being dusted off in the wake of the Battle of Edmonton indicates a desire to lessen Gjallarhorn's influence. It'd make sense if there was also a movement in favour of taking over the Ariadne Network and the reactor production. Countries don't tend to like it when a third party can just cut off their vital infrastructure, you know?

More importantly, from a writing point of view, it was something I could tie everything else into, giving me a through-line from the stuff I'd established in To Catch a Falling Star (which I wrote first) to where I was going with a grown-up version of Almiria. I could use the stuff with Iverson to establish the technical side, spinning off the detail of the reactors needing to be built close to a star (still not sure certain about the wiki's translation of that, but the idea has good visuals). I could work in the economic angle, in terms of Earth and Jupiter/Teiwaz's relation to it. I could have some Calamity War flashbacks, to explain why the Crucible was the only manufacturing station left. And it gave me the thematic motif of Hati and Skoll, which was fantastic fun to play with.

Above all, though, it allowed me to illustrate exactly how Almiria's rage had manifested, eight years on. Because there's a very real possibility that getting rid of Ahab reactor production means a long-term decline for everyone, and a considerably higher risk it'll create massive short-term instability. Space-travel gets riskier, space-based construction grinds to a stop, humanity can't reach any further, the technological triumphs of the setting are irrevocably altered, and everyone needs to adjust to a new way of living.

Of course this is Ragnarök, not oblivion. I made sure to position pieces of what could come next: Teiwaz's ascendency, the colonies pulling free of Earth, the blocs dismantling existing arrangements, a slow crumbling of Gjallarhorn as they fought to sustain themselves. Things wouldn't change at a stroke, there'd be a lot of mess, it might very well lead to something worse. It wouldn't be hopeless either. There'd be ways to adapt, to survive, to build something better.

But fundamentally, the point was to illustrate where Almira sits on that metric of 'what do you believe and what can you live with?' And the answer is, she decided there was no cost too high for the sake of seeing Gjallarhorn burn. She was going to have her revenge, consequences be damned.

And there is nothing more dangerous than a human being who isn't afraid of the consequences of their actions.

[chaosnojutsu]

good morning!! I see your backstory ask post and I would love to hear more about the bridgerton AU or extraordinary love!! Whatever you want to say about them. they are faves of mine!! ❤️ thank youuuuuuu

You get both as I try to decide if I can swing something for Shikatema month and prep for Nejiten month! Perfect timing, I actually just re-read these two last night looking for inspiration!

ask about the backstory for one of my fics!

send shivers down my spines: I wrote all the Nejiten story and separately wrote all of Lady Whistledown as one cohesive letter, and then decided where I wanted to place each of her gossipy interjections. That was neat to explore as a writing device because I had room to expand upon the world and add a little more flavor (like detailing Naruhina’s relationship and my obligatory background Shikatema mention) without feeling like I had to do it all from Tenten’s POV, which would have detracted from the core of this story: Tenten being horny for Neji.

Another fun part of writing this was casting what role each character would play! Coding Neji as Simon was easy — deciding to split Daphne between Tenten and Hinata then seemed natural; the premise of having sex in the library comes from Daphne and Simon, but it felt disingenuous to her character for Tenten to be the diamond of the season. My personal favorite analog is Tsunade and Queen Charlotte, which also felt like a duh decision given their roles in society, but I liked the nod to Tenten wanting to impress Tsunade.

I solemnly swear to never refer to Tenten’s junk as “nethers” again lmao. I usually can’t stand that one, but it felt appropriate for the piece. And I can’t talk about this fic without bringing up the dom Neji agenda! Who’s going to tell the head of the house he can’t give head anywhere he wants in his house?? Definitely not Tenten, and apparently not any of their house staff. I’ve spent some time considering what a dom Neji might look like since your initial comment on the fic, so he might make a stronger appearance in another work — yay and thanks for putting the bug in my ear!

extraordinary love: “Temari knows damn well why a stupid social construct like her nonexistent virginity matters. Back in the day of arranged marriages, the whole thing was more of a business deal. The wannabe groom would have to pay more to his bride’s family in exchange for her hand in marriage if she was pure. Virgin brides from influential families were high dollar items. Temari’s family is influential enough. But now that the matter of virginity is off the table… this barter is looking more like the Sand seeking retribution against the Leaf than tit for tat. If her marriage is blessed, they’ll probably stipulate Shikamaru move to Suna instead of the opposite, which is not what Temari and Shikamaru decided on. In the most drastic worst case scenario, like Kankuro said, their engagement (or the knowledge that said engagement has been consummated on a number of occasions) might be seen as an act of war. They’ll stick Shikamaru’s stupid, handsome face in a bingo book with shoot to kill orders.”

This premise is the heartbeat of the story. What does it look like when your personal values don’t align with those of everyone else around you? How do we respond when well-intended people stick their nose in our business and give an opinion we never asked for? Combined with fan theories/headcanons that Shikadai was a pre-wedding pregnancy — and that’s an interesting concept to me, especially considering what that might have looked like for Temari and Shikamaru if they were still long distance or abruptly decided not to be (and the parallel to Mirai and Kurenai and Asuma, of course, which I didn’t hit in this story because Temari wasn’t actually pregnant) — everything fell into place.

Making the call to write from Temari’s POV was exciting but scary because she’s so Particular, you know? But this story needed to come from her because of what it is, and it’s about Temari’s agency: she gets to decide who she marries, and whose baby she has, and she gets to decide when those things happen. And then I got to actually write her being in love (which I’m eager to try again), and I love the energy of Temari being like “Look how impressive my fiancé is! I made a good choice! I’m trying really hard to make you approve of him!” and Shikamaru being like “Yeah, what she said!” Because Shikamaru understands that as far as Suna’s customs and culture go, he doesn’t have a dog in that race, he IS Temari’s underdog in the race.

I’m honestly proud of this fic because I know I just made it sound really serious in terms of themes etc., but it ultimately is a comedy, and anyone who has ever done comedy can speak to how difficult of a skill it is to learn and hone. One of the things that makes comedy work well is that the characters have to take everything seriously and respond sincerely, now matter how ridiculous or grandiose their circumstances or responses may be. Temari even says from the beginning of this story that she knows she has the Kazekage on her side, but she panics a little because of her circumstances and takes matters into her own hands, and she doesn’t relinquish that control until shenanigans have ensued and Gaara finally reminds his sister that his support of her was never in question. (I’m not sure how I feel about my iterations of Gaara and Kankuro individually or overall, but I do like their scenes with Temari as siblings and their consistency.)

Side note: the reception of this story gave me the confidence to write chapter 15 of Reliance the way it panned out!

(also, I’m late, what’s new, lesbian nejiten is coming i promise)

[stoopid-turtle]

made-up thoughts about dd's gender presentation

Okay, the gender post! Honestly, dd's gender presentation is something I think about a lot (ok, I just think about everything dd-related a lot), so here's a post about it. A couple disclaimers on the way down though.

Gender is weird

Um, so gender is complicated and deep. I'm not gonna delve into that too much. Just know I'm not saying much about dd's gender identity, because that's too speculative for me and I don't tend to analyze how people might feel their gender inside.

So this is all about gender expression or performance. The way he presents himself to the world. This includes stuff like clothing, ways of talking, makeup, mannerisms, etc. Anything we can see when we watch him.

For those more into the advanced gender convo, yes yes, gender is a social construct and there's nothing inherent about, say, a tuxedo that makes it a "man's" outfit. Fully onboard with that. But for simplicity's sake, let's shortcut to acting as if we buy into how society genders random stuff so as to recognize that a tux is "male-coded" by just about every society in the present day. Everybody swims in these waters, and they perform their gender with the understanding of how their society assigns these arbitrary gender assignments, so let's just deal with that for this convo. /obligatory gender theorist disclaimer

East vs West

I'm in the US, and I fully recognize that there are different norms for gender in Eastern cultures. A lot of the things that read as "feminine" to Western eyes is more neutral in the East, such as long hair or makeup. (I've read a fantastic tumblr post that went into this in-depth but, alas, I can't find it now. You will notice throughout this post that I am extraordinarily bad at refinding things)

On top of that, idols, in specific, often have quite feminine stylings to Western standards. In the East, the vibe I get is that idols are seen as more androgynous (though still threatening to some forms of masculinity).

I can only speak from my own very westernized perspective, so take it with as much salt as you want. I reserve the right to change my mind about everything later, anyway.

Basically, I have 3 main points here, starting with:

1. DD's early styling was more femme than he would ordinarily gravitate to

There's a moment I think about a lot. This one, specifically, set a month and a half after UNIQ's debut. The band is on a Chinese talk show and the host enthuses about them.

(also, baby DD rapping Love the Way You Lie is just....well, it's a thing that happened) (some US context: Love The Way You Lie was an Issue Song pointedly about domestic violence with Rihanna - an artist who had been a victim of a highly publicized dv assault - as the chorus singer and Eminem - a rapper with a history of misogynist lyrics (with a song about murdering his ex-gf) - doing the rap. It had a weirdly sexy music video with that lotr guy and was also a thing that happened)

DD is 17 years old here--a baby--and he's, frankly, adorable. He notes that he's been training for 4 years (I'm so curious about what idol training looks like, tbh), which wows the host.

But the part that I think about a lot is when the host expounds at length about how beautiful and like a girl dd is. DD has a girl's hairstyle (i've had that exact hairstyle at multiple points in my life), and the host says at various points that he's "more beautiful than girls", that girls will envy him, that he is very very pretty, that if she were a man, she would fall in love with him. The basic upshot here is that much is made of his feminine looks, and I get the vibe that his styling is more femme than typical, even for an idol.

At the same time, I think about this moment of dd in a dance competition in 2011, before his debut. DD's main passion has always been dancing, and he went into hiphop dancing, as shown here. He also attempted breakdancing while younger, though an early injury apparently kept him from going that route (I swear I've heard this somewhere, but can't find where. Link me if you know).

DD was interested in the more macho-types of street dances. Hiphop isn't as dominated by men as breaking is, but it's still has more of a masculine culture than jazz or, you know, waacking.

I think a lot about a kid who wanted to spend his life dancing, who went through idol training to debut as the femme maknae of a group. It was a weird fit for him, and I think his movement away from that initial look reflects that.

At the same time, I want to go back to something I find significant about his talk show appearance.

When asked who is most popular among girls, everybody (dd included) points to dd. (A bandmate also jokes that dd is most popular among men). A 17-year-old kid who just debuted a little over a month ago with a femme style is already getting fawned over by fans and older female hosts. However weird it could be, it's gotta be a huge ego-boost at a formative time to get the positive feedback to that look.

I think (and putting on my speculation hat here) that this is important for dd's performance of gender as he gets older.

Which brings me to the next main point:

2. DD enjoyed his more feminine idol look bc he knew it made him attractive

I suspect dd came to some acceptance of the more femme styling (once he moved away from the white peony look) primarily because it got him so much fawning.

I imagine idol training goes into how to create a public persona for oneself, especially given how much idols are supposed to reveal of themselves. Letting fans feel that they're getting an intimate look at the real person, while still maintaining the privacy of their actual personal life, is a skill, and I expect it's second-nature to dd at this point given how long he's been in the industry.

This isn't to say that dd's fake or that the dd we see publicly isn't "really" him. But it is a carefully presented version of him that intentionally keeps his private life private.

There's really 2 periods where we probably see the most authentic, unfiltered dd: the early UNIQ days, when he was still getting the hang of the ent industry (though that's complicated in that he was also young and under pressure to perform a certain way and had not developed the skills/experience/cache to set limits, hence him doing a lot more cutesy stuff that he refuses to do as he gets older); and the bts footage for CQL, as he did not expect those to be so widely seen. Even the unscripted stuff like DDU and SDC allows for some intentional presentation of himself in a way the more candid bts moments did not.

That's a bit of a digression, actually, but it's important because I think this public persona, especially the idol persona, is more femme than dd would normally style himself (as in, how he would style himself if he weren't an entertainer). The result of this is that we see some contexts, such as the CQL fanmeetings where dd wears women's outfits, where that idol style is intentionally deployed. Part of the point of fanmeetings is fanservice, and dd's feminine presentation, linked as it is to his idol image, is wholly about pleasing the fans.

There's reason to believe that dd was never too much into those stylings because he intrinsically enjoyed them. He's said multiple times in interviews that he prefers going without makeup. This isn't too telling because, hey, makeup can be uncomfortable to wear. Especially stage makeup.

But there's an interesting compilation of interview clips where dd reveals his complete lack of even any interest in makeup, referring curious interviewers to talk to his makeup artist and explicitly associating makeup with women (I have looked everywhere for this. I swear I saw this compilation on YouTube but now I can't find it. This is unfortunate bc this particular video really made me think about dd's gender presentation). And of course, his attempt to do someone else's makeup was...adorable. This is not a guy who wears makeup for the joy of it. He wears it because it's part of his job.

This isn't to say that dd looks down on it. Not at all. We only have to look at his defensiveness of the idol look to gg during the bts to see this. I don't think he's at all bothered by makeup. He just accepts it as part of his career.

(I have a completely made-up story in my head about how gg's preference for no-makeup dd was a major romantic thing bc it's gg liking the real dd, not the idol persona that everybody else fawns over. And how, once dd realized that gg was paying him a compliment, it gave him big feels. This story is definitely not real)

This all is gonna lead me to my last main point:

3. DD's probably okay taking on a more masculine style now bc it fits more how he would naturally dress himself

Like millions of other people, I really dig the idol look. When I was doing my initial dive into turtledom and read about some of the Chinese censorship of idols in recent years, I was initially put out because...idol!dd!

(Ok, as a queer person, I also have big solidarity feels and stuff, but that's a whole digression)

But then I began obsessively watching browsing dd stuff on YouTube and I came around to thinking that while I love and miss idol!dd, I don't know that dd is too shook up over it.

In my view, dd sees that type of styling as a role to put on for certain performances. Now that it's out of style, so to say, he switches to something else. It goes along with some other career transitions he's making, such as focusing more on film. I think this may just let him go with a more "natural" styling (basically, how he would style himself if he weren't a celebrity).

(I do think he likes dyeing his hair fashion colors, but that's not necessarily gendered. He's had plenty of dyed hair looks that are still masc)

When I think of things like that...well, I still personally miss idol!dd because that look really works for me. But I'm not bothered on his behalf because I don't know that he feels particularly constrained by the idol crackdown (at least with regards to no longer being able to present with an idol style; there are other aspects of the politics that may feel constraining, but that's a whole other digression). If anything, it provides a good reason for him to move away from idol-dom in his career (which he'd have to do at some point as he ages).

To wrap this up, I've felt horrendously guilty that the first photo on this tumblr wasn't even of dd or gg, so i'm gonna end this with a photo of idol!dd. I'm not gonna say it's my favorite look, because it's just cruel to make me pick a single favorite. But this is one I think is pretty.