#first person plural point-of-view

[incognitopolls]

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: How to Choose POV

A Quick Guideline on Choosing POV

Refresher: Definitions

First-Person Singular: First-person singular narration uses the pronoun “I” and is the most commonly used form of first-person point of view. This style is perfect for character-driven novels and creates a close, immersive connection between the reader and the story. However, this type of narration limits the author and the reader to a single character’s experiences, feelings, and knowledge.

First-Person Plural: This first-person narration style utilizes the pronoun “we” and is less commonly used. It combines the intimacy associated with first-person with the flexibility of third-person omniscient. First-person plural can be effective when done well but can be tedious and is limited to the collective voice.

Second Person: Second person utilizes “you” for the narrator but is more commonly used in short stories. This style easily fosters close bonds between the readers and the characters as you start to feel as if they are you.

Third-Person Limited: Narration in third person limited relies on she/her, he/him, they/them, etc., pronouns as well as the character’s name. This point of view limits the author and reader to one character’s perspective allowing the writer to exercise the closeness of first-person singular through thoughts and feelings while also offering the broader perspective of third person.

Third-Person Omniscient: This type of narration also utilizes the character’s preferred personal pronouns and name and gives the narrator god-like storytelling abilities as they can reveal any character’s thoughts, go to any time or setting, know information the characters are unaware of, and comment on events in the past, present, and future. The degree to which these abilities are used is up to you. Third-person omniscient is popular among novelists with large casts and complex plots. However, this style can lead to too many shifts in perspective.

Tips for Choosing POV

You may find that you have a preferred point of view and then realize it’s not a good fit once you start writing your story. Many writers worry about finding their voice, but sometimes the story finds it for you. If you’re unsure which point of view to choose, consider these tips to help you pick.

Explore your options. You won’t know which POV to use unless you try them all. Try writing or rewriting a scene from your story in each POV to see which style fits your novel best.

Establish your POV. Once you’ve picked a style, stick to it and let your audience know which character they’re experiencing the story through.

Note limitations. POV will decide what information your character is privy to and thus determine their actions and opinions. Take time to review your work with your character’s limitations in mind to keep your writing accurate.

Don’t be afraid to change. If you find yourself drifting into another POV as your novel progresses, don’t shy away from revising your work into the best perspective for your story. It’s also important to note that some books shift from first to third to second, and it may benefit you to find examples of novels with varied narration to help you learn to master this style.

Source ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References ⚜ POV

[qiu-yan]

one topic i've been interested in lately is the idea of moral luck.

let's start somewhere else. i was surprised to learn that the question of "do moral dilemmas exist" is actually debated upon in moral philosophy. broadly speaking, a "moral dilemma" is a situation in which the agent can only choose one of several mutually exclusive options, and yet the agent has moral reasons compelling them towards each option. some philosophers have argued that, given a sufficiently robust moral philosophy, a "genuine" moral dilemma cannot exist: the moral philosophy will organize the differing moral reasons for each course of action into a hierarchy, in which more important moral reasons override the others; thus, the moral philosophy will always be able to identify one or more correct courses of action.

based on my own analysis - if one takes a more moral-pluralistic point of view, though, this is no longer true. moral pluralism indicates the view that multiple different values can all be equally valuable and morally significant, even when they are contradictory. in this case, a moral reason may not be able to override another moral reason. in my opinion (which i am not sure if lines up with official ideas of moral pluralism), this entails the return of the moral dilemma. after all, if the agent can only choose one of several mutually-exclusive courses of action, and the agent has genuine moral reasons for each course of action, and these moral reasons also cannot override each other - then it seems the agent is doomed. no matter what the agent chooses to do, they will be violating some moral reason. they will be committing some moral wrongdoing.

the idea that someone is doomed to commit some moral wrongdoing is referred to as moral tragedy.

this is all kind of abstract, so let us consider a more concrete example. first, let's consider the trolley problem. from a deontological perspective, the perfect duty of not violating the categorical imperative by killing the 1 person comes before the imperfect duty of taking action to save 5 people from death; hence, the correct choice is to not pull the lever. from a utilitarian perspective, the outcome in which 5 people live and 1 person dies involves less harm than the outcome in which 1 person lives and 5 people die, so pulling the lever is the correct choice. however, from a more morally pluralistic point of view, both the choice of pulling the lever and not pulling the lever involve violating some moral duty. people have a moral duty to not kill people, and people also have a moral duty to not allow people to die through inaction. you can only either kill the 1 person to save the 5 people or allow the 5 people to die through inaction. no other choice exists. thus, no matter what choice you make, you will be violating one of those two moral duties; you are trapped in a moral tragedy.

now let's consider another example. suppose you are jiang cheng, and wei wuxian has just busted wen ning's wen remnants out of the jin labor camp at qiongqi pass. from a more morally pluralistic point of view, you are also caught in a moral tragedy: no matter what choice you make, you will be violating some moral duty.

if you choose not to stand by wei wuxian, then you are violating some of your moral duties. wei wuxian is your martial brother; you have a duty towards him. wen ning and wen qing helped you greatly in the past; by the virtue of reciprocity, you owe it to them to help them too. furthermore, as a human being, you have a moral duty to stand against the mistreatment of innocent people. choosing not to stand by wei wuxian entails violating all three of these moral duties.

however, if you choose to stand by wei wuxian, then you are also violating some of your moral duties. you are the leader of the yunmeng jiang sect, which is currently recovering from near-absolute annihilation and thus lacks the resources the other great sects have. as the leader of yunmeng jiang, you are its representative: thus, you standing by wei wuxian when he has alienated lanling jin means that you are making yunmeng jiang stand against lanling jin. and since the jin sect is tied to the other two great sects via the venerated triad, if yunmeng jiang stands against lanling jin, then the situation will become all three of the other great sects against your one weak recovering sect.

you are the leader of the people in yunmeng jiang. those people just fought a war for you. as their leader - or even simply as someone for whom these people bled and suffered - you owe it to them to put them first. as a leader you exist for your people. if you act in violation of what is best for your people's safety and happiness, if you actively choose to put them in danger, then you have broken the social contract by which they gave you authority. then you have failed your duty. and since choosing to stand by wei wuxian puts everyone under your protection in danger, choosing to stand by wei wuxian entails violating your moral duty as a leader.

so. no matter what choice you as jiang cheng make, you will be violating some moral duty. you will be committing some moral transgression. you are caught in a moral tragedy.

from a morally pluralistic point of view, any choice in a moral tragedy entails some moral wrongdoing. so what determines whether you end up in a moral tragedy or not?

luck.

it's commonly said that a person's moral character can be determined from the choices they've made in their life - judge a man by his actions and all that. in other words, we look at what moral violations he has committed, as well as what morally upstanding acts. and yet! if he's ended up in a moral tragedy before - then he had no choice but to commit a moral violation, because all of the available choices were moral violations! does that mean that a person's moral character is subject not just to his own choices, but to luck as well? whether or not you can be called a good person or a bad person is affected also by merely how lucky or unlucky you were?

i do not personally use the framework of "good person" vs "bad person" very often; the utilitarianism i favor cannot be used to judge entire moral characters. however, it certainly is the case that other people will judge an individual's entire moral character by the choices they've made. and yet, it seems that - again and again - the concept of moral luck is not considered.

who did not have moral luck? who ended up in a moral tragedy?

wei wuxian. jiang cheng. lan xichen. jin guangyao. nie mingjue. and many others.

who did have moral luck? who avoided all the moral tragedies?

lan wangji.

[patricia-taxxon]

hi, sorry if this is something you've said before and I missed it, but since conceptualizing Amber and Avery, has the way you want to be addressed by the parasocial internet hoard changed at all? is Patricia Taxxon still a singular entity that goes by she/it? Or are they a group of two entities who individually go by she/it and collectively are they/them in the plural sense?

it occurs to me that when I reblogged you yesterday I used plural they/them out of the habit I've formed talking about other systems I know, but its been bothering me since then that like, you never told people to do that, and it feels weird to they/them you even in the completely epicene "multiple entities" sense without your go-ahead. i know that your self conceptualization at this point is more complicated than "i'm definitely a plural system" so there's that too.

anyway, hope you're faring well, and I basically just want to be able to refer to you comfortably. see you on the internets

Thanks for asking, I'm not entirely sure yet. I'm still using singular first person pronouns naturally, cus it feels like I'm one point of view exchanging emotions, preferences, and identity between two different consistent clusters of traits that I call Avery and Amber. Which one I am at any given time is only really crucial information for my friends who have to talk with me. It helps to personify us sometimes, like when I feel Avery clambering to front, but it probably won't be important for everyone in my audience to participate. Patricia is still one entity that prefers she or it.

Basically, the only boundary that I think concerns most of you, cute dog furry asks are fine but cute raccoon asks are not. Avery just likes indulging in roleplaying as a dumb animal wayyyyy more.

[paper-mario-wiki]

If you don't mind me asking, why is it that you choose to refer to yourself in the first person as Scout, but then you refer to yourself as Chase in the third?

The human body is a phenomena of individual atoms, molecules, fungus, bacteria, rot, and entropy coming together in a single space over an indeterminate amount of time. Both Scout and Chase have occupied this form. At one point during this one's window of existence, it has been accurately described as Chase, and I'll honor that for the rest of my life, as it would be disingenuous to do so otherwise.

Make no mistake, this is not a matter of split personality, or any other sort of plurality. I know, in basic terms, that I'm the same person. I'm the same form, and I have the same tastes and aspirations as I did before I transitioned, but when I use the first person pronoun "I" when speaking about things this one had done before it became Scout, it's inaccurate. Because "I" refers to Scout, not Chase. Scout can speak for Chase, and Scout is responsible for Chase's actions, but Chase cannot speak for himself anymore, because Scout isn't going away, and there is only one voice between the two.

I don't find it weird at all that most people don't view things this way when they change their name, as it's often done for a very private and personally important reason. When I'm called Chase it does bother me, because that's not right, I'm not Chase. I'm Scout. But Scout knows that Chase existed, and Chase knows Scout currently exists, even though he physically does not.

[sugar-grigri]

Like Prometheus, the heart will be bruised

When Fujimoto makes a revelation, it's important to remember that this revelation never comes out of nowhere; there are always clues to it in the previous chapters. These clues don't serve to make you want to know what happens next (which is difficult with CSM), they serve above all to make your experience as a reader more gratifying, especially on rereading.

Well then, let's get started! In chapter 146 Fujimoto introduces an exceptional new demon, the Fire Devil.

What I find particularly interesting is the extent to which his power and this chapter are based on the same way a fire works

Barem's statement to his contractors alone makes sense, because to take the form you desire is to escape your condition in the same way that humans in prehistoric times began to use fire, moving away from their ape-like status.

In the same way, the fact that the fire demon gains in power as the number of its followers increases makes perfect sense. It works like a kind of fire that goes up in flames.

Now let's take a step back. It was while I was rereading the last few chapters that I realised a number of things...

Let's start with the fact that the fire demon was right under our noses, as shown by the presence of fire every time Fujimoto placed this false demon of justice, whether with the class president literally pulverised by Yoru or Yuko burning her neighbour's body.

But above all it's clear how the fire demon fulfilled the expectations of these two contractors

The President wanted to be seen by Mr Tanaka, hence the plurality of heads.

As for Yuko, she was an intrusive person (although I like this character) who wanted to know Asa's secrets, their exchange of secrets being for her the proof that they had become best friends.

Yuko seemed like an isolated person who was desperate to get into people's heads, hence her mind-reading powers.

This also works with the old man from the church who also contracted the false demon of justice, his thesis was that he could fight demons by becoming a demon... which he did.

The other point I want to make is that Fami's plan is bound to have flaws, not only because it would be more interesting from a narrative point of view, but also because we sense that she's trying to find the right tactics.

Her first tactic was to starve Yoru to get complete control of the war demon, but that didn't work.

Every time she tried to starve Yoru, Chainsaw Man or Denji were around, which gave Fami the idea of a possible partnership between the two, rather than fighting each other.

Hence the fact that she explains to Yoru that cooperating with Chainsaw Man wouldn't prevent him (or at least the black Chainsaw Man) from being killed, as this cooperation is more than necessary.

I'm also intrigued by this line because, in the light of the last revelation, it only implies even more that Chainsaw Man must become this super-powerful champion.

The church is really trying to help him, in other words the church is really trying to restore his power and even increase it.

But what I find even more incredible is the fact that Asa and Denji are in the same position

They're both at the heart of Fami's plan, but they're also both host to one of those demons that can kill the Death Demon.

But their situations were different; Asa fell into the trap by tying up with the church, while the passivity that could be taken from Denji was in reality a form of resistance.

This is particularly striking in several chapters

Denji had not succumbed to the temptation of becoming a divine being with the church, whereas Miri Sugo could despise him for only wanting to remain a chair, to act like a chair - this act of depreciation goes completely against the veneration of the church.

The fact that Denji belittles Chainsaw Man by acting in a humiliating way is in itself an act of protest against the fact that he is becoming a hero incarnate in whom the church will project itself.

I'm well aware that Denji wasn't aware of all this, but it's precisely his personality and deep-seated nature that allow him to go against this plan.

The fact that Denji wants people to find out he's Chainsaw Man defeats the whole purpose, because giving this mechanical monster an identity, a human head, makes it impossible to identify with him.

Yes, the impostor is pretending to be Chainsaw Man, but this generic character with his abstract and broad speech means that everyone can admire him and continue to project themselves as Chainsaw Man.

What Fujimoto has done from the start is underline Denji's flaws, his deep humanity and his own self-deprecation, he's too strong a character and so far removed from the imaginary Chainsaw Man that it would make any admiration and identification collapse.

Above all, Denji and Asa are cannon fodder for their own demons, Pochita is subject to Denji's dreams and wills, which are always in pursuit of integration among humans and literal contact, and when the heart isn't split in two, the brain is, Asa with her moral dilemmas, her intellectual capacities that escape the law of retaliation how advocated by the war demon

That's why the rest of the plan is as follows: Fami knew that the public hunters would fight back, so she deliberately let them.

The public demons immediately set about neutralising Chainsaw Man, so she wanted to kill two birds with one stone, Asa, i.e. bring back as many followers as possible with a new figure. But above all to draw the attention of the public hunters to Asa. Wouldn't Fami take advantage of the fact that Asa could be massacred by Yoshida to force Yoru to change host...... to Yoshida?

Just like the fact that Barem is quite close to Denji.

Remember when Fumiko said she was a fan of Denji, Barem intervened and said he preferred Chainsaw Man?

Time to separate

Barem propagated the fact of becoming Chainsaw Man like a fire that would spread, this time the punishment was not for Zeus to make humans mortal but rather immortal and monstrous demons.

But the fact remains that the rule will continue to apply and, like Prometheus, a heart will be sacrificed and bitten by the birds

A heart bitten by a bird

[hiiragi7]

Parts language is not dehumanizing, but the way people in the plural community treat parts language makes me feel dehumanized as a person who uses parts language.

I was reading that damn "Why the Theory of Structural Dissociation is Ableist" article written by Stronghold and released by the plural association (bluntly, I find it to be a very poorly written article - not in its strongly worded opinions, but because it spreads blatant misinformation regarding the success of final fusion based on a study the author did not understand, and I also find the piece to be incredibly ableist against systems who use parts language and seek final fusion).

Specifically, I want to talk about this paragraph from the article today, as I find it illustrates a lot of the problems that I have encountered in the plural community with regards to parts language:

Although I do not think personalities is the right term for us, nor is the word parts. It is derogatory, dehumanizing & it is taking away from our autonomy, roles and authenticity as individuals. And so I often wonder whether the alter integration they desire, equals just not being Plural anymore in the minds of the writers of Structural dissociation. If it does, it makes sense to diminish us to parts. And it also makes sense to claim “no one has to go away”, if they never believed we are separated in the first place. After all, it is the ‘experience of separation’, not actual separation, as they say, we did not split off. So was using the term ‘parts’ in 1987 progressive, or a step to further diminish, gaslight and silence us?

While I find questioning the intentions of the authors valuable and think it is important to explore whether any given medical intervention is truly aimed at individual wellbeing or whether its goal is normality and conforming to ableist ideas of what health looks like, I find it completely unnecessary to shit on parts language in order to do that.

This idea that I or any other system which uses parts language is "diminished" to parts carries the implication that parts are something less-than, undesirable, or have less value than systems which are not parts. This narrative is surprisingly anti-system for an organization which claims to be "empowering those with Dissociative Identity Disorder, OSDD and all other forms, labels and experiences of Plurality."

I am not diminished to parts; my parts are me, and I am a person. I cannot be diminished by my own personhood.

Additionally, the idea that parts language is "derogatory, dehumanizing, and takes away from our autonomy, roles, and authenticity as individuals" may imply that systems which use parts language are self-harming, that they are being derogatory and dehumanizing towards themselves, and stripping themselves of their own autonomy and individuality. This is an extremely negative and biased view of not only parts language but also those who use parts language as well. I use parts language for myself out of self-love, not hate.

Further, if we are to acknowledge plurality as a spectrum, then even if parts language really did mean system members were less individual from each other, how is that a bad thing? Median systems have long existed and have described their experiences as "different versions of me" or "different modes"; why is this fine, but saying you have parts as a system is not? Why is there such a focus on individuality and personhood to the point that it excludes those systems who do not experience their systemhood in that way? In what way is that inclusive?

Parts language should not be forced onto anyone, as it is important in general not to force a view of self onto someone that does not align with how they identify; yet, it feels as though people completely forget that rule when sentiments such as "your system members are 100% different people" or "calling your system members parts is derogatory and you are dehumanizing them" are pushed onto people as some sort of objective truth. That is just not how my system works; It would be just as wrong to say my system is not parts as it would be to say to a system who is not parts that they're actually parts.

Critiquing the language which medical professionals use to describe the experiences of their patients has its place, absolutely, however you must also have a level of respect for the people who relate to and use that language that all too often is lacking.

[oneatlatime]

Let's look back at my season 2 predictions!

When I got to the halfway point of season 2, I made a post detailing my predictions for where the rest of the season was going. They were delightfully subjective and conformed more to my hopes than to any legitimate foreshadowing.

I made 9 predictions (one per main character), and then I predicted three ways that the finale could go. I went into some detail in some of my predictions, so I'd recommend checking out the linked post. Keep in mind that I made these predictions before the Ba Sing Se arc started, and it shows.

For Azula, I predicted that she would be the finale's big bad, that she would be defeated, and that the Fire Lord would be introduced as next season's big bad. I'm giving myself one third of a point for this one. Azula was indeed the big bad.

For Toph, I predicted that she would get a subplot that revolved around either something she excelled at being challenged by an external force like those wrestling idiots, or something that she needed to work on that tied into her noble background. Once again giving myself a third of a point, because those wrestling idiots were involved and she did meet an obstacle that she beat by inventing metalbending. I correctly predicted the pieces involved but I got them in completely the wrong configuration.

For Appa, I predicted that he would come back after having many adventures and running into other sky bison. (What's the plural of sky bison? Devastated to say that I've never had to use it) I was right that Appa came back; I was wrong that he ran into remnants of sky bison(s?), but he did end up running into remnants of the Air Nomads, and dreaming about other sky bison(s?), so I'm giving myself three quarters of a point.

For Zuko, I predicted that he would be coaxed/dragged into being decent via a swordbending girlfriend, and that he would be redeemed by the end of Season 2. Hilariously, my prediction smashed Jin and Jet together, which breaks my brain a little. Also, he did the polar opposite of being redeemed by the end of the season. I'm going to give myself a quarter point, for getting the sword bit and the girl bit.

I predicted that Sokka would split from the rest of the Gaang and go on a multi-episode Appa hunting arc that focused heavily on his ties to his family. I was 100% wrong with this one. No point for me. Which is too bad, because I really liked the idea I came up with.

I predicted that Momo would do aerial reconnaissance for the Appa hunt with Sokka. I'm giving myself a full point for this one, because what was he doing in the Tale of Momo? Flying around looking for Appa. Admittedly Sokka wasn't there, but whatever, I need this point.

For Katara, I predicted some sort of moral crisis. Something to add some nuance to her world view. A good yet unapologetically patriotic firebender, or a downright evil waterbender. I was completely wrong on this one too, unless you count being talked into listening to Jet. No points for me.

I predicted that Aang would have to do some type of Avataring that involved delegating tasks to his friends, or putting his status as avatar first, probably due to unrest in the spirit world. This was by far my most broad prediction ("hey maybe the avatar will have to avatar it up" is a very safe statement), so no points for that. I was wrong about spirit world involvement, although I was right that his Avatar duties would conflict with his personal convictions. I'll give myself one quarter point.

For Iroh, I predicted that he would call on old resources to get himself and Zuko into a better situation. I got this one almost completely right, except two bits: I thought he would use blackmail or intimidation, when he actually used something more like the power of friendship, and I also thought that particular plot point would last longer than a single B-plot in a single episode. But what the hell, I'm giving myself the point.

All three of my predictions for how the finale was going to go were incorrect. There was no strike against the Fire Nation, there was no immediate dismissal of the eclipse as a possible time of attack, and there was no relegation of the eclipse to a single episode plot point. No point for me.

So, out of a grand total of 12 predictions, I scored:

3.91!

Ouch.

I'm going to be generous and round it up to 4, which is a third correct. Still ouch. I am less reliable than a coin toss.

But! I actually had a lot of fun both coming up with predictions and reviewing them. So I'm still counting this exercise as a win.

[sophieinwonderland]

Anti-Endos Don't Deserve a Safe Space!

Alright, if you saw this it in the tags, you can guess what I'm responding to.

Anti-endos and neutrals need to learn that anti-endos are just bigots and bullies looking for an outgroup to dehumanize and send hate to. They don't care about science. They don't care if anything they say is true. They only care about hurting people for being different!

Since when is Tibetan Buddhism a closed culture? Let alone a "VERY" closed culture?

In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is an open religion and a proselytizing on that encourages people around the globe to join! And the Dalai Lama, the highest spiritual authority in Tibetan Buddhism, has even encouraged Christians and the West to use Tibetan Buddhist meditations.

“Many Christians tell me they believe in Buddhist meditation, which can be learned by Christians. We teach right attitude. We teach meditation, which can be quite deep. These would be things that the West can take, and I think it is clear that Buddhists should practice certain Western methods, too.”

These are the words of the religions' highest authority figure!

Stop trying to declare the Tibetan Buddhist religion closed just so you can use them as a talking point to spread hate!!!

Since this is invading inclusive and pro-endo tags, as always, my response is going into anti-endo tags. If anyone takes issue with this, please hold your own community accountable for invading our spaces and take it up with @the-helside-sys.

I don't believe anti-endos deserve a safe space to spread hate but I'm willing to allot them one so long as they aren't breaching into inclusive and pro-endo spaces and aren't tagging hate posts like this:

But I'm actually not done yet!

I want to respond to another one of their posts!

First, this isn't true. A scientific theory has to be testable, and has to be tested and supported by evidence. But it's not necessarily "generally accepted as truth."

And with soft sciences, what constitutes a theory can be a bit questionable. See many of Freud's psychoanalytical theories.

This isn't really relevant. It's just an important point I want to bring up for people putting too much stock into psychological theories as if they're accepted facts.

Structural dissociation is meant to cover a very specific form of multiplicity.

Endogenic systems aren't ignoring the theory of structural dissociation because the theory of structural dissociation does NOT support anti-endo claims.

The author of the theory have stated that it may be possible for self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality to exist through other means, citing hypnosis and mediumship as examples:

The theory of structural dissociation's own creators are, at worst, neutral on endogenic systems acknowledging that trauma may not be the only way for self-conscious "dissociative parts" to form.

And you will not find a single paper saying the only way to be plural is through trauma. It doesn't exist!

Anti-endo views are not backed or supported by science or experts in any way!

...

Now, back to the title... Like I said... anti-endos don't deserve a safe space. But this isn't about what anyone deserves to me. It's about escalation.

I'm willing to let anti-endos keep to their bigotry in their own spaces for the time being so long as they behave and keep it there.

But continuing to post hate in our tags is unacceptable. Currently, I avoid posting in anti-endo tags to keep the peace except for posts like this. And even in posts like this, I don't post in DID or OSDD tags out of respect even when discussing those topics.

But it's certainly something I could do. Were anti-endos to continue to erode boundaries between spaces and encourage their followers to invade inclusive and pro-endo tags, I would have no problem appropriately tagging my posts that are about DID with "#DID" and similar tags. It wouldn't be against the rules of the site because my posts are about the topic I tag it with. And why maintain a boundary if it's only going to be respected by one side?

So to people who feel it's important to maintain separation between communities... I'd highly advise you do better at policing your own community's crosstagging so that we can all maintain our safe spaces, whether you feel we deserve to or not. Thank you! 😊

(This applies to both the explicitly endogenic and pro endo tags, as well as the plural and plurality tags given that "plural" was a term coined by non-disordered systems and is inherently inclusive.)

[iztea]

hello iz ik it's such a cliche question and idk if you've already answered that but- how do you learnt drawing humans??? like everyone says practice but i don't know how and i struggle so much :( thanks already for answering!! i really really love your art

hi!

the very regulated, academic, objectively correct bs answer: learn the fundamentals, study and practice!

the unhinged, off-the-counter, cool uncle from your dad's side of the family answer:

Imo, the best way to learn how to draw on your own is to reference and study other people's art. There is no need for you to reinvent the wheel, and if you are a beginner and have no idea what you're doing, tackling multiple fundamentals at once can overwhelm and demotivate you quite a lot. So, for your morale and motivation, I think it is totally okay to just observe multiple artworks from multiple artists and engage with them critically ( * N.B. : artistS - plural; by referencing multiple works, you lower the risk of accidentally becoming a copycat or locking yourself into an art style that will never be as good as the original because it was not yours)

What I mean by critically engaging with an artwork is to analyze how they're tackling difficult body parts that you struggle with. For example, let's say you can't/don't know how to draw legs. Look at a picture of a real human leg, observe how someone else has simplified that leg form and anatomy, and then try to recreate it. Don't just copy their linework 1 to 1. That is not the point. Do it your own way, incorporate aspects of others' art that you like, and make them yours. You should have 5++ references of that leg from 5++ different artists. There are maany people out there who post their studies online, raw sketches or structural drawings (TB Choi comes to mind for example). Look for people like them, and if you can't find someone, then Pinterest is your bff. When learning how to draw, hunting the internet for how people sketch >>> rendered art. If speedpaints are more your thing, then youtube has you covered. Personally, I've learned more from a 20 min speedpaint with nightcore bgm and zero annotations from some guy that doesnt even speak english that has 300 views than I've learned from 10 min long art tutorials from fluent english speakers with 1 mil views. At the end of the day, we can yap and theorise as much as we want, but it's the act of drawing that brings results and seeing how other people draw is sometimes worth a thousand words.

> References in general also help a lot. I can't tell you how many times I was too lazy to look something up and spent 14235 hours trying to draw it off the top of my head only to have it done in 10 minutes once I finally gave in and pulled up a reference. So yeah, always use references. Don't be like me this is actually a bad habit

Okay, but how to /use/ that reference if you're a beginner? Very simple: draw on top of it ( *Do Not trace the outlines, that's pointless if you actually want to learn something). Draw guidelines over the body parts, deconstruct and simplify the ref into just boxes and lines ( always think in 3D ). This will help a lot with keeping the proportions in check. You can start by drawing those guidelines first and then get into details. Kinda like in sculpture: you start with a big block of a rock, and then you slowly carve and build form and then detail. The more you draw, the less you will need those guidelines as you get a feeling for the proportions yourself and will no longer need this step.

Once you become more confident in your skills or have a "sense" for drawing and you are in too deep to just give up after hitting your first wall, then you can tackle the scary intimidating stuff that is art fundamentals ( or you can do them simultaneously, all I'm trying to say is to never forget that you are not the only drawer in the world; looking in your neighbor's yard is totally okay within the reasons of common sense ). You don't have to raise and milk a cow it to make butter, you can just buy it from the store. If you want to bake a cake, a beginner chef will use store-bought cake mix because they have no idea how to cook. Once they learn the science behind baking (because it really is a science) they will buy their own ingredients and then improve or personalize the cake with better, well-researched ingredients, they will add their own twist, flavours, adjust the macros, perfect the technique and so on.

This is how I've personally learned how to draw by myself bc I'm self-taught and didn't care for formalities as it's just a hobby of mine that I do for fun. If you want proper advice you should probably listen to more qualified people but I can only preach what I practice.. Anywayssss hope it helped!!

[frozenjokes]

Hey, I binged read your cubscar(ian) hotguy au

And I LOVED it,

Cub's characterization is so precious, he's so autistic to me (I'm autistic so I kin heavily) the way you write him, chef's kiss and all that. Is Cub Demi? xx

Scar is so strong and yet so broken but he doesn't know it yet, I'm so glad he's in therapy now <3. I love that you wrote him this way, he's disabled (just like me) but he's not a child, he's whimsy but so life smart, I value so much when authors write him like this and his plurality is very relatable <3. And his friendship with Mumbo <3

Grian, well he's just so real, his need for a job ever tho Cub was happy looking out for him <3, his friendship just reconnecting with Mumbo so easily, warmth. I love how self aware he is, and the angst you wrote for him is heart strings shattering I loved.

Cub and Grian's relationship ahhhhh yessss. The commitment and devotion, how they are so connected they didn't notice it sliding from platonic to romantic. This just IS for me.

Cub and Scar, well (yes again 🤣) they are so sweet, and Cub holds 51% of the cards lol but Scar's 49% is really doing things for Cub wink wink. Some of the reasoning behind Cub's love is being loved. And Scar loving him because of his round edges and softness 🥹

Scar and Grian. I hope the flowers he got for them were poppies and lilacs /lh /nf; Scar's fear because of his sharp edges, Scar in other works has his weakness but he can always find in in himself to want to protect Grian almost as a superior?, but you write Scar so vulnerable and equal to Grian. They are enemies to frenemies to ... But really it's caused by the lack of knowing, eachother and their personal experiences. Again Scar and his plural view of people <3 I think Grian thought of Scar as stronger emotionally, physically, mentally then Scar ever was, and Grian used him because of this misconception. I'm glad they're getting there, truly. Did Grian feel dejected? when Scar didn't help with his wings? Angst <3

thank you!!! Cub could be Demi. So could Grian! They can be whatever your heart desires. Personally I don’t care to label any of them because it isn’t very important to me. I do think Cub would refer to both Scar and Grian has his friends even after years of being together and it drives Scar absolutely nuts. Why are you doing that. What do you Mean. Cub it’s been twenty years you can introduce me as your boyfriend I Promise no one here is going to judge you and cub just goes: ? oh right. and then he never does that. the word friend just comes easier. it’s cozy.

It’s very silly to me you pointed out scar’s friendship with Mumbo because they are not friends scar is Coping. /silly. I actually forget very often I write a lot of angst of these characters because that’s just not really how my brain categorizes turmoil. It’s always a jumpscare to see it pointed out /light hearted, joking. funniest instance of this happening 🔽

(from chapter two of the Jimmy decked out fic)

I was on call with a friend while reading this for the first time and for the life of me I Could Not think of what /nf meant and he didn’t know either so we came up with some ideas: NOT FUNNY. no fingers. non fungible. nut fart. NO FUN. no friends. Nice feet. never forget. nice flowers. new friend! NOT FAIR

it means not forced. we had to look it up LMAO /silly silly silly. thank you for the laughs

Grian thought of scar as a piece of shit self absorbed celebrity and this is true however it’s not everything. inside is a deeply, deeply, extremely deeply, unimaginably kicked puppy. he’s sad and pathetic and has big wet eyes. also he cares.

Grian wasn’t too affected by Scar’s not wanting to touch his wings, and in general the experience was a little more overwhelmingly confusing? Neither he nor Cub expected him to have such a strong reaction, especially when things between all three of them are getting better, but Scar is still carrying the weight of a lot of Grian’s poor treatment of him for weeks on end, and even though Scar’s forgiven him and understands where he was coming from, those aren’t things you can just brush off, especially when many of Grian’s gestures (good and bad) are sweeping and intense and unpredictable, and people pleasing for someone as unstable as that (less so now, but before it was bad) is Extremely Stressful. dealing with cuteguy (evil version) for months beforehand Did Not Help. there’s a reason Scar views Grian as Sharp and that’s because they have both beat the piss out of each other hundreds of times.

To a point Grian is aware of this. It’s a thing he’s discussed in therapy a thousand times, and something he had to confront directly with Jimmy. In his eyes, his friendship with Scar (despite blunders on both sides) is an act of Scar’s good will towards him as given with Scar’s forgiveness, and if Scar is having problems, then it’s not really something Grian can hold against him. Obviously that doesn’t stop feelings from being hurt, but this was more a result of The Panic Attack than the wing touching refusal. Which Grian dealt with by Pushing Minigolf Pushing Pushing Pushing Pushing. Grian’s reaction to guilt and/or rejection is I NEED TO MAKE UP FOR THIS RIGHT MEOW!!!!! and in doing so often fails miserably to read the room, which is why Cub steps in in that particular instance.

as far as wings though, if I were Grian, scar would be The Last Person I want touching them. Clumsiest motherfucker alive who in the case of this au, tends to be rougher with his affection because he literally can not tell what is too little or too much. Having someone nervous at your back probably isn’t a great feeling either, and for an activity that’s supposed to be relaxing, Cub brings a Much steadier aura. Cub also has the capacity to focus. Scar would probably need at least three other sources of stimulation to do a good job. And it would still hurt. Regular wing grooming is not supposed to hurt 💔

my rambling service comes free, well, perhaps at a small cost of a seemingly benign question. normal about her ocs frozenjokes back at it again

[olderthannetfic]

I really fear I might be unleashing a storm of wank here, but out of curiosity, why does everyone I know who knows of the Fanlore wiki tell me it's nothing worth trying to edit things or create pages there? Everyone seems to have a very burnt-out, I-don't-want-to-get-into-it vibe when it comes up, so I assume there's some underlying issues I'm unaware of. However, it's hard to figure out what that is when people don't give any details beyond "it sucks, don't interact with it".

--

It hasn't really gained the critical mass of editors necessary to make wiki work fun, IME. That can be an issue even if other things are fixed.

Some areas of fandom far from what OTW early adopters cared about are barely fleshed out at all, which can be intimidating if you aren't the kind of person who likes writing a whole article yourself. (I had to write the entire scanlation article at one point, for example.)

It has some areas where somebody wants to set up their little fiefdom and is a mega nitpicker about any edit, which is a common Wikipedia disease too but can be very shocking and offputting if you aren't used to fighting with dickheads on wikis.

And it has had many, many bad calls on the part of the people running it that have made it suck worse to work on. Some of those sound like they've improved over time. Some have gotten worse.

A few times, deeply misguided idiots (sorry, yes, I do mean you, friend who did this), have called for it to be more ~academic~ and have tried to police ~low quality~ contributions...

These are not people who have any real experience with functioning wiki cultures very clearly, and they should be ashamed of themselves for the chilling effect their bad takes had on Fanlore's struggling attempts to build an actual community of editors.

--

Of course, some people are just Big Mad that other fans have noticed them and choose to discuss them without running every phrase past them first and/or that some bully's bullying behavior is documented and not swept under the rug.

A lot of people are really shit at understanding what PPOV (plural point of view) means and want Fanlore to either be only Objective Truth instead of an account of fandom social things or want it to only tell their own side of some wank.

[candyskiez]

i would love to hear more of ur thoughts about ???%… specifically surrounding teru cause it’s been on my mind lately

OHOHOHOHO you've awoken the beast. I am so sorry. I will specify. I love Teru. I love Teru so much. This makes it sound like I don't like Teru. I really like Teru. I am writing about ???%'s thoughts. I am studying him under a microscope. None of this is how I personally feel about Teru. Do not kill me. Please do not kill me.

I'm admittedly biased towards plural mob because. System. But I did write this with both plural mob and ???% as the repressed parts of Mob, so feel free to read it as metaphorical or Guy In Mobs Brain.

So. I've been thinking a lot lately about how Teru strangling Mob could've easily been the first time he almost died. Like. I don't think he almost died in that incident when they were kids, and I think Reigen would not be nearly as relaxed on jobs if he thought Mob would die. We've seen how he is when Mob's in any amount of what he considers to be serious danger. So I feel like it's very, very important to remember that when talking about how ???% reacts to Teru. ???% does not react to the literal terrorists as much as he reacts to Teru, because Teru was the first and one of the most personal.

I say most personal because well. For the others it wasn't about him, it was about a goal. Teru was just...fighting him, in Mobs eyes. Teru was operating on his own insecurities. It wasn't some big conflict, it wasn't some epic anime fight, it was just about Teru's insecurities and need for Mob to not be a threat to him and to be Better than everyone else. It was just two kids fighting. I think a lot about why ???% holds onto this so so hard, and a few reasons I think he has are

1. The shit listed above

2. The fact that Mob wasn't doing anything to instigate, was in fact actively asking him to stop, doing ALL the "do not stick out, do no harm" shit that made Mob repress ???% so hard in the first place, and Teru still hurt him. Mob repressed him for no fucking reason because people would still hurt him anyway.

3. This very well could've been one of the few times ???% has came out at all in a long time. I'm not sure how often ???% would've gotten to come out since it seems for a while he just came out when Mob needed it/when Mob wasn't around to stop it. So like. First memory in years and it's this guy strangling you. Would leave a pretty big impression.

4. Teru never actually apologized. Like. WE know he's sorry. But Mob and ???%...didn't? Mob was willing to let it slide. But like...those repressed emotions are gonna go somewhere. Mob might not want to think about it, but that event was traumatic for everyone involved. They almost died and Teru had his entire world view torn apart, got thrown into the SKY, and had to piece everything together lol over again. Like. ???% depending on your view point is Mobs repressed emotions or someone that literally formed to hold his repressed memories (save me plural mob, save me). ???% admits in the manga he doesn't trust anyone. How many times did he feel unsafe around him and wasn't able to do anything, because Mob liked him? Because mob cared about him and knew he changed, so it'd be unfair to bring it up, and besides HES the one who really hurt Teru, so it's fine! It's fine. <- Boy who isn't fine. How much was ???% just waiting for Teru to turn around and attack them again?

5. This also leads into my next thought: lack of agency. Some of these points will be less applicable if you don't view him as plural, but I think some of them still definitely work if you think of him as Mob but to the left: he feels like he didn't get a say in whether not they'd be close with Teru, he feels like Teru just Decided they were friends and didn't even acknowledge what happened and now he can't mention it or ask if he's actually changed or if he's even sorry because then he'll be an asshole so he just HAS to be quiet regardless of how he feels about it. He feels like everyone just decided Teru was SO good now and didn't even ask him how HE felt about it. He feels like Teru's moved on and just FINE, like he didn't almost fucking die. Actually I think almost all of this works if you don't view him as plural. Yippee I'm not accidentally alienating anyone here.

6. No seriously. Teru didn't apologize. Did ???% almost come out a few times at being around Teru. Did Mob get scared by Teru reaching towards him and ???% started to surface. How many times.

Okay okay. Now onto confession arc. I'm thinking about why he acted the way he did and like. He wanted to hurt him so bad. And it's so damn raw. Like. Teru is repeating the lesson Mob taught him, genuinely trying to help, but from ???%'s perspective it feels like a fucking joke. Teru almost killed him. Teru acted not even that different for YEARS, and he gets a slap on the wrist. But ???% messes up once and he's punished, for years? But Teru doesn't even have to apologize? Teru doesn't even have to try to get forgiven? But ???% was dutifully silent for four years. And he's still hated. I feel like that was kind of the point where ???% became WAY more destructive which. Very interesting. He went from "I need to see Tsumobi" to "I want to hurt this person." Also I'm thinking about how strongly he reacted to being told it was for his own good, that Tsumobi shouldn't see him like this, to calm down like. Okay. There's no way he hasn't heard all of that a million times. Like obviously I love it from a plural perspective but I'm gonna go into ???% is an allegory for a sec. Being told that you need to mask for your own good, that they just totally have your best interests at heart and that's why they never want to hear you complain or look upset or even slightly lose control of yourself or act even slightly abnormal. Let alone the fact ???% believes HES the real Shigeo. In his eyes being told to calm down and act like Mob again is being told to stop existing. He's being told to calm down the first time in YEARS he's let any of this out. And like. Tsumobi shouldn't see you like this. In his mind that's being told "Tsumobi shouldn't see YOU. People shouldn't see you. You're not desirable. People don't want to look at you. Just go away. Just be normal. Just be quiet. Calm down. Stop making such a scene. Get a clue." And that's obviously not how Teru meant it and ???% is doing serious damage, but like. He's having a breakdown. He seems calm in the mind scape, but he is Not Fucking Calm. He's having a breakdown. He feels so goddamn rejected by everyone and he's chasing the one good memory he got to make as ???%, not Mob. Which like. God from an autism or a plural perspective hits me so fucking hard. I remember being a kid and clinging on way too hard to my only friend because she didn't mind me acting autistic and getting so so terrified when she started drifting away from me. Watching it just feels like watching kid me panic because the only person who doesn't hate him isn't hanging out with him anymore. Being plural and autistic means this show will kill you. Anyways. What I'm saying is Teru basically took a mallet to every single one of ???%'s buttons and he took that Personally.

I'm gonna can it here because if I don't I'll never shut up. But I love Teru and ???%'s dynamic. So much. I love it. I have so many more thoughts on it, plural and non plural. You have no idea how much it's paining me to can it here. This fucking show, man.

[hyperpotamianarch]

All right. So, I have decided to make my next post more purely about Judaism - no fantasy this time, sadly. Maybe a sprinkle of history.

The topic I'm about to talk about touches politics. While it is likely that my personal views will affect what I'm writing, this isn't supposed to be about the political side. I want to discuss the what the Halacha - Jewish religious law - has to say about Jews climbing the Temple Mount. Is it forbidden? What laws are relevant here? Etc. This post is supposed to be informational first and foremost. There is the issue that, in ignoring how current affairs might influence the Halachic ruling, I'm not really covering every direction. A Halachic ruling is somewhat versatile and depends on the specific situation. Thus, what I'm saying here doesn't amount to the final word on the topic, especially considering the fact I'm not a rabbi.

With that preface, we can get to the glossary. I'm going to use some Hebrew words in this post, and for the benefit of those who don't know Hebrew (as well as those still struggling with it) - I'm going to explain them here:

Tum'ah - noun. Impurity or ritual uncleanliness. Taharah - noun. Purity or ritual cleanliness. Tamé - adj. Something that is impure or ritually unclean. Plural: Təme'im. (Can be used as a noun for someone who is impure or ritually unclean) Tahor - adj. Something that is pure or ritually clean. Plural: Tehorim. Tzara'at - noun. A skin ailment of supposed supernatural origin that is treated by a Cohen, a priest. A person who has it is Tamé. Təmé Met - noun. one who is Tamé due to touching, carrying, or being in the same house/tent as, a human courpse. Torah - noun. The Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses. Sometimes used in referring to the entirety of the Hebrew Bible or to all Jewish religious writings collectively. Mikveh - noun. Ritual bath filled with water not collected with human tools, that is used for getting Tahor after being Tamé. Zav, Zavah - noun. Someone who is Tamé due to irregular discharge from the genitals as a result of illness.

Note that these translations aren't completely accurate. I've seen many people say that there is no moral judgement in being Tamé or Tahor, and I agree with that. Tum'ah is pretty much unavoidable in one's life, and there is pretty much no way for someone to not be Tamé at some point in life. On another note, please don't confuse Tamé with tame. The words aren't pronounced the same and have very different meanings. Hopefully the italicization and the acute accent will help you tell the difference.

Anyway, to get into the topic: the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is a holy place in Judaism as the mountain on which the Temple(s) stood, as its name makes pretty obvious. As such, Təme'im are forbidden from climbing it. Simle, right? Problem is, it's only some kinds of Tum'ah that make you prohibited from getting there.

You see, Tum'ah can come from various sources: human courpses, courpses of certain animals, specific illnesses such as Tzara'at or irregular discharge from the genitals (don't ask), and regular body functions such as mensturation, giving birth, and normal seminal discharge. There are many topics in the Tum'ah and Taharah branch of Halacha where the source of your Tum'ah doesn't matter as much as how distant you are from the source of the Tum'ah (meaning, did you touch the Tamé object directly or did you touch something that touched it), but in this specific case it's just the source that matters. Or, well, I guess if you're too distant from the source then it doesn't matter at all, but I'm not completely sure about that one.

Either way, the Torah instructed as to send the Təme'im away from the camp (Numbers 5, 1-4). Specifically, it talks about a person who has Tzara'at, a Zav or Zavah, or Təmé Met. The Sages teach that just as there are three categories of Tum'ah in this list, there are three levels to the Israelite camp, and each category is sent out of one. Since the levels are one inside the other, being sent out from the outside ones means not being allowed to get into the inside ones as well.

The levels of the Israelite camp in the desert were the Israelite Camp - where the twelve regular tribes stayed, organized under four banners for each of the cardinal directions. They were organized in a large rectangle, inside of which there was the second camp - the Levite Camp. This is where the Levites and Cohanim (Priests) lived, along with Moses and his family. Who were Levites, so maybe it didn't really deserve a mention. This camp, in turn, was arranged around the holiest camp - the Camp of the Divine Presence, otherwise known as the courtyard of the Tabernacle - the portable Temple used in the desert. The law of sending the Təme'im, according to the Sages, said that a person with Tzara'at was sent out of all three camps; a Zav or Zavah was sent outside the Levite Camp but was allowed in the Israelite one; and Təmé Met was only sent outside of the Camp of the Divine Presence and wasn't allowed to enter it.

So, how does this apply today? Since, you know, we're no longer wondering the desert for about 3297 years, give or take. The answer is, the Sages also explained how the city of Jerusalem is divide to those three camps! The city itself, inside the walls (during the time the Sages said that, in the Roman era, nothing outside the walls was considered part of the city), is the Israelite Camp - thus, those who have Tzara'at are sent out. This illness isn't known nowadays, though - and no, it's not exactly leprosy - so it's not a problem. The Temple Mount is the Levite Camp, so if someone is a Zav or Zavah - they're not allowed in there according to the Halacha. And the Temple itself, along with its courtyard, is the Camp of the Divine Presence and Təmé Met is forbidden from getting there.

You'd think that would make things straight forward, right? Well, it doesn't. It's still complicated, mostly because the Temple hasn't been there for 1956 years, give or take. one who is Təmé Met is still not allowed to the grounds where it stood, though, and it not existing make it hard to judge where that is. The simple solution would be to get rid of the Tum'ah, right? But sadly, the ritual to get Tahor from human courpses isn't available to us right now. Unlike the one for Zav or Zavah, which is dipping in a Mikveh, then waiting till sunset (more or less, it's a little more complex). Thus, if we knew what area of the Temple Mount wasn't a part of the Temple complex - we could be allowed to get there, at least after making sure we're Tehorim. Before you ask what about someone who isn't Təmé Met - nowadays we assume everyone is, due to not having the way out of it, everyone being born in a hospital (where people sometimes die), and the fact most any Jew is required to become Təmé Met at some point in life. It's not for the purpose of being Tamé, it has to do with mourning.

So, if you are a random Jew nowadays and the political issues are magically avoided (which is not a possibility, but I already said I'm ignoring this angle for now), there are two major things you need to worry about: get yourself Tahor from being a Zav or Zavah, and not entering the area where the Temple complex was. The latter is the hardest of the two, really. I mean, theoretically one could hope to find the remains of the Jewish Second Temple, but besides being burned to the ground the area was plowed, had a Roman Temple built on top, then it fell into decay, and at somepoint the Muslim conquerors decided to build the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque. It's not very easy to find the remains of the Temple there.

Here's the thing, though: the Temple Mount as it stands right now? It's bigger than how it was in the early days of the 2nd Temple. That is due to Herod deciding one day to renovate the Temple. Say what you will of this guy, and there's a lot to say, but he was an expert when it came to architecture at the time. And he thought, 'hey, this mountain is kind of small. I want the Temple to be really big!' So he expanded the mountain, supporting his expansion with four walls. (That might be a good time to point out that the Temple Mount isn't that much of a mountain. It's kind of small.) One of those walls is the Western Wall or the Wailing Wall - a site that sometimes is called the holliest site to Judaism. That is an innacurate moniker - it's simply one of the closest places to the original Temple site. Either way, there is a general agreement that the areas Herod added to the Temple Mount aren't really considered a part of it and the original Temple definitely never stood on those. Thus, a Təmé Met is definitely allowed there. In addition, while there are many disagreements over the exact placement of the Temple, there are areas on the Temple Mount that definitely weren't inside the Temple complex. Nowadays, there are maps indicating where it is allowed to pass according to all of the different opinions.

So, with all that, why do people still say it's not allowed to climb to the Temple Mount? Well, obviously, it cold be due to the reasons I outright said in the begining I'm not discussing. Those are very relevant reasons and they have Halachic merit. I'm not touching them, though. So, are there any other reasons?

Well, it turns out there are. Firstly, not everyone trusts the mapping of the Temple Mount. Some people fear that these maps might be wrong, and accidentally lead someone to the worng places. In addition, some people think that if such pilgrimage will be allowed to occur en masse, many people will not care about the prohibitions and will come without dipping in a Mikveh first or will enter forbidden areas. People who use this latter reasoning may allow some specific knowledgeable people to climb, but will prefer keeping it quiet. Then there are people who use historical accounts of rabbis scolding people for climbing the Temple Mount, assuming that they had their reasoning outside of what I've laid before you.

So, to summarize: enterance to the Temple Mount is prohibited and only allowed under certain conditions. Those conditions could be met nowadays, probably, but many rabbis are unsure about how possible or desirable it is. In addition to that, the political climate of the Middle East and the Levant makes making such pilgrimage a politically charged action and can cause damage, which might also be problematic.

I'm not going to sum it up as "it's forbidden on Jews to climb the Temple Mount" because that's not an accurate statement. It's easy to make such blanket statements, sure, but I think accuracy is important - which is also why I don't say "it's allowed and desirable for Jews to climb the Temple Mount", because this statement isn't accurate either. As a matter of fact, there are occasions where it's directly undesirable according to the Halacha.

Thank you for reading this! Have a good day!

[williamvapespeare]

7, 18, and 54 for the fic writer asks?

7. How do you choose which POV to write from? Interestingly, this isn't really something I ever actively think about before I write (especially before I write fic). Usually when I have an idea for a piece it will just necessitate being from a certain point of view because a character has to be somewhere to have an experience, or it's inherently about them doing a certain thing? Or if a character's story is about a thing I'll just be drawn to writing about them/that element of them when I want to write about that thing, rather than having an idea and then deciding on a pov character later. Like, I was really mad about something a while ago and thought, you know who else gets angry? Charles Rowland. And then I wrote crushed alyssum to get out my feelings (sorry, Charles <3). (Unless this question means like 1st, 2nd, 3rd person pov in which case it's always 3rd limited for fanfic and (so far) for novels, and sometimes 1st for short stories)

18. Do you title your fics before, during, or after the writing process? How do you come up with titles? A combination of all of them! Sometimes a title comes to me really naturally from the piece's content. like molliculi (soft little things) couldn't possibly be titled anything else. the whole story is about Edwin's struggle with that very word. he's too SOFT (and also that word means like, soft, gentle, tender, or effeminate things and it's the masculine plural, so it's just like an inbuilt Charles and Edwin word). and it's also about the way his early education is warped by his trauma and his afterlife, so having a latin title made sense. and then I, a certified 2012 tumblr user, couldn't possibly give up an opportunity to do the (rest of the title in brackets) thing!!! Or sometimes the title is a bit separate, like I came up with The Case of David Bowie's Made up Sexuality after writing a single scene in that fic and thought it was really funny. (AND David Bowie, basically the first person to publicly use the word bisexual, had in Charles' lifetime REVOKED it and said he was a "closet heterosexual" and then Charles died before he kind of "came out" again much later?? it was just poignant and silly and stuff). Obviously, sometimes I get to the point of posting and then just scroll through for a line that would make a good title. Like in the grand scheme of a life cut short.

54. What’s your favorite part about the fanfiction writing process? omg it's both 1 getting to just play around in someone else's sandbox with characters someone else made and I love!!! and 2 READERS and lovely COMMENTS <3 the irl writing industry moves so slowlyyy and it's so rare you'll really be able to connect with readers in the same way, so being able to post something and people who also love the same thing will read it and be enthusiastic and talk to me about it is just the most lovely thing.

so sorry these are such long answers asdl;fj i yapped too close to the sun.

[kingalex0]

-listening to “No one Mourns the Wicked” and had the URGE to analyse the entire song for some meanings and this is what personally stuck out to me. There are Wicked Part 2 spoilers so dont read it if you don’t want to be spoiled on a piece of media that’s old enough that you can look the ending up on Google dot com.

In the beginning nothing really sticks out in terms of hidden meaning as its basic “good news and did you hear” till Glinda appears

“Let us rejocify that goodness would subdue the wicked workings of you know who”

Already it kind of draws that eyebrow raise for me that Glinda doesn’t call her either Elphaba or “The Wicked Witch” as munchkins SHOULD know her name Elphaba is not old enough to where most adults in Munchkin Land wouldn’t know her name as she is daughter to the former governor and probably would be governess after his death. But choosing to say “you-know-who” rather than the moniker Elphaba has been using is rather weird and using this as a moving point its also strange that Glinda would say Goodness (Singular) and Subdue, subdue means to make quiet/ bring under control as if Goodness had to quiet something or bring control to something but she doesn’t say anything explicitly saying that Elphaba has been killed simply that shes been brought under control or quieted.

Glinda’s next line really feels like its pandering to the munchkins but the one after rings bells for me “The truth we all believe’ll by and by. Outlive a lie” What does Glinda mean by “truth we all believe’ll” is there a lie that needs to be brought to the public’s attention and does she plan on telling this truth to the entirety of Oz at some point the line “Outlive a lie” saying that a lie will be put to rest before Glinda or rather the people of Oz grow old because she extends this by saying “For you and I” showing that its more important to her that other people know this information before she gets it off her chest.

They really Shade Glinda by cutting her off during her speech like ugh raise your hand but the first two lines really feels more pointed at Glinda narratively no one mourns the wicked, no one cries that they won’t return, no one puts flowers on their grave. These are all things that presumably Glinda has done in secret upon hearing about Elphaba’s death before her public address and assess.

BUT AFTER THEY’RE DONE BASICALLY MOCKING GLINDA WHY DOES IT PARALLEL WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MUSICAL SO FAST

“The GOOD man scorns the wicked” is the parallel thats drawn in Glinda between being kind and being good later on in the story and this I’ll circle back to.

“Through their (The Wicked’s) lives our children learn, what we miss when we misbehave” AGAIN drawing parallels between Elphaba’s penultimate disagreement with the wizard, her “Misbehaving” ex. Running away from the wizard, calling him a phoney, stealing the grimorie and ultimately not aligning with his world views (Animals shouldn’t speak and should be caged). But the What we miss part is also important because because what Elphaba misses out on is what Glinda’s life is, being labled a good witch being loved by Oz being an important political figure with power. This line also starts showing the connection that those who are deemed “Wicked” are not singular but plural though on surface level it can be seen as both Elphaba and her sister the next lines refute this

BACK TO GLINDA who has more knowledge than the munchkins who are singing says “And Goodness (Singular) knows the Wicked’s lives (Plural) are lonely, Goodness knows the Wicked die alone. It just shows when you’re wicked you’re left only on your own” and when Glinda says Goodness (singular) vs THE/WHEN YOU’RE Wicked (PLURAL) she’s talking about the people in Elphaba’s life including herself, claiming that Elphaba is the only good person in this story hence why Goodness is singular everyone else in this story is a bad person EXCEPT FOR Elphaba This also further cements the reasoning for the good vs kind argument that’s woven throughout the story moving back to the “A GOOD man scorns the wicked” a good man would scorn the wicked because he has been told its good to do so but a kind man would be told this and NOT scorn the wicked

But then the Munchkins repeat Glinda’s words without knowing the meaning behind them then adding on “The Wicked cry alone” there are no scenes where anyone is breaking down crying or crying at all EXCEPT for Elphaba during the Ozdust Duet and also Elphaba during the moment where Glinda and Elphaba split during Defying Gravity. But its only Elphaba crying. And this is because that line is ment to be literal noone who is “wicked” is shown crying because they cry ALONE, and that sentiment includes the audience who are considered a person in the room

Then “Nothing grows for the wicked they reap only what they’ve sown” again the parallels for the plural wicked but every character besides Elphaba gets exactly what they deserve there arent any character’s who are miraculously given an opportunity they work in some way shape or form for that opportunity. Glinda is accepted into the sorcery class because Elphaba put her own knowledge on the line thanks to Glinda setting up Nessa with Boq

And moreover on Nessa and Boq because Nessa does not love Elphaba unconditionally and it blatantly obvious in scenes where Elphaba is being ridiculed in the beginning and she never speaks up a singular time for her sister so through a karmic deserved fate she ends up with Boq who loves her conditionally but she love him unconditionally. Boq is paired with Nessa though he doesn’t truly love her and conditionally loves her because he was chasing after someone who did not want him and got that same fate turned upon him being paired up with someone whom he does not want.

Essentially the dynamic is that Elpahaba unconditionally loves Nessa who only Conditionally returns this love, so through Karmatic fate Nessa Unconditionally loves Boq who only Conditionally returns this love. Boq Loves Glinda who does not want him so again through Karmatic fate Nessa Loves Boq who does not necessarily want her.

This sentiment also extends to the last couple in this friend group Fiero, as he actively attempts to court Glinda when he first comes to Shiz using the f-boy persona but when Elphaba says that she sees through his facade he grows GENUINE feelings for Elphaba but only gets with Glinda as he was being a playboy and earned his playboy reward but he does get his true pick at the end of the musical. However for Glinda her karma and reaping is more in the fact she tries ENDLESSLY to never be lonely surrounding herself with people who only see her for her outwardly personality much like Fiero but where she and Fiero split Glinda is never able to fully shake that people pleasing outward snooty personality, forsaking her morals on numerous occasions just because she thinks it will make someone like her more thus leaving her completely alone at the end of the story with no one who will see her for who she is because she’s hidden this underneath so many layers of popularity and people pleasing.

And the scene where the Munchkins start trying to catch Glinda slipping. But she counters with “Are we born wicked or do we have wickedness trust upon us?” which again refers to how the story believes that Elphaba is the only character that should not be labeled wicked and draws more lines in the sand that the actual wicked people were born like that while Elphaba was given that title of wicked unfairly.

Then the big part of the song where not much that draws true meaning is really said. A bit of irony on the Munchkins part where they sing “we know what goodness is” because they are simply echoing Glinda’s words and are unable to draw the actual meaning from Glinda’s usage of “Goodness” (Elphaba) and “the Wicked” (The rest of the cast).

Then the last really important part of the song are sung “Woe to those who who spurn what goodness they are shown” and this is where it foreshadows some events that happen later on in the story basically saying that anyone who spurns goodness (Elphaba) does not end with a happy ending or the happiest they can be, saying they they’ll always have troubles just because they spurned the goodness they were shown (The IMMENSE Kindness that Elphaba displays throughout the story)

For example woe comes in the form of a house on Nessa Rose, curses placed upon both Boq and Fiero, Glinda ending the story with none of what she wants (Her husband is gone and her best friend dead to her knowledge), The Wizard returned to his home after decades of disappearance with likely his entire subset of belongings that weren’t in the balloon either sold, or destroyed in some way so he’s not returning to the life he previously had and Madame Morrible likely dead idk but the point is made

So literally nobody is happy at the end BUT Elphaba because she is freed from the entirety of OZ because she leaves and is never seen again (She fakes her death and runs off with Fiero) Which is absolutely crazy that the first song of this Musical not only clearly draws the parallels that are shown throughout the musical but foreshadows damn near all the events

Theres also the theory that Glinda sings higher when she’s lying which I support but its easier for me to pick apart the words because she is hitting whistle notes during the entire damn song