#have i intrigued you yet

[echo-in-the-bone]

I've been a shadow here for far too long. Perhaps it's time I introduce myself.

As you can see, I call myself Echo. (A generic name, indeed.) But I find it fitting.

There, now you know what to call me. I think this is a great start, don't you?

My interests are macabre based. Dark, foul. (Though, I suppose many here like to indulge in these sorts of things.) Being a shadow has given me an idea of just how damning we all are. Rest assured, I thrive on this.

I can't say I will fill your feeds with ramblings of a melancholic mortal, but know that I am always here. Watching you.

- Echo ⚸

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Reasons to play In Stars and Time: Canon Pronoun Warfare.

[egophiliac]

LEON

LEON YOUR EYEBALLS

[gingermintpepper]

Why did Apollo favor the trojans in the Illiad?

So, dear Anon, I've been thinking about how to answer this question since I got it a couple days ago and I think I kind of want to make something clear before I get into it.

The Iliad by itself as a poem only covers some of the events that occur in the final year of a long protracted conflict that had been brewing for at least two decades and was an active war for ten. Within the space of the Iliad itself, the motivations and affairs of the major players are often referenced but there are many, many parts of the story that are not there because they belong to a different story cycle that has been since lost or was never recorded with words. In the space of the Iliad Apollo's motivations are questioned a lot - his pride is questioned by Poseidon who thinks Apollo should be just as angry at the Trojans as he considering Apollo was treated equally as poorly by Laomedon while they worked together. His honour is questioned by Hera who chastises him for taking the Trojans' side when he'd proclaimed that Achilles would live a long life and prosper at Thetis and Peleus' wedding. His own sister calls him a coward for refusing to fight when Zeus gives permission for the gods to go wild on the battlefield. For all that there's this image of Apollo in the Iliad as some staunch and unwavering protector of the Trojans, believe it or not, I largely think of Apollo as neutral in the war.

Which, I suppose, comes back to the question - why did Apollo favour the Trojans? The truthful answer is that I don't know. The Iliad and all its connected stories isn't something I've done enough research on to have an answer or a reference to an answer off the top of my head. The reasoning I'm aware of is that Apollo was a Patron God of Troy and really a god doesn't need any reason besides that to protect his people but it's not like Apollo abandoned the Greeks either. Calchas is the biggest example of that I can point to - descended directly from a priest of Apollo and one who attributed his mantic power to the god, Calchas was pivotal in ensuring the Greeks even got to Troy in the first place.

From a personal perspective however, I think Apollo was more dedicated to the house of Priam than he was the city of Troy itself. Apollo's affection for that house and all its members ran deep - from his admiration of Hecuba and Hector to his love and attempted courtship of Cassandra to his blessings given to Helenus, Deiphobos, Cassandra, Troilus and even his partnership with Paris - Apollo loved the house of Priam. When you think about the times Apollo lashes out against the Greeks, it's generally because they've done some nonsense to earn his ire. The plague was caused by Agamemnon disrespecting his priest, his aid in the slaughter of Patroclus was because he didn't respect him, his minor grudge against Diomedes too was because he tried to test Apollo's mettle and well, the less said about Achilles the better. Apart from his obvious favouring of Hector in the skirmishes, Apollo doesn't really oppose the Greeks. He has a ton of reasons to by the time the Iliad rolls around, including avenging the death of two of his sons, but he remains mostly satisfied with conducting his father's business and overseeing the war from a somewhat professional perspective. To me, it's always been less about Apollo caring about the fate of Troy as a city itself and more about him just really wanting to protect the people in the city that he's come to love and respect.

Of course, I encourage you to take my words with a big tablespoon of salt - like I said, I don't really know enough about the facts in particular to give a solid, confident answer but I can give you my interpretation of it. Maybe consult someone like @littlesparklight for a more comprehensive and grounded response 🤔

[marlynnofmany]

I just learned the fascinating science fact that if not for air slowing the speed of snowfall to a gentle drift, snowflakes would plummet with enough speed to slice people. Like tiny ninja stars.

Of course, without air to hold all that moisture in the sky, snow would never condense in the first place. Unless there was some artificial snowmaker up there for some reason. Or there was a gap in the atmosphere somehow.

(I was trying to think up a sci-fi justification for lethal snowflakes. Instead I thought of a magical one.)

Hey, you know who could make a strategic gap in the atmosphere? Airbenders.

[pmpwbrrs]

I LOVE iterators with diseases. Not just rot

[bumblingbabooshka]

I hate when Chakotay is watered down to be Janeway's yes man because their disagreements are actually very interesting. [A lot of rambling analysis of this debate in particular below]

Chakotay in Parallax is very interesting in that he has to navigate a lot of different dynamics. Balance a lot of plates while being watched keenly by everyone around him. Immediately preceding this scene we see him ask B'Elanna for her opinion on the bridge - both as a chance to show her knowledge in his bid to make her chief engineer (because she wouldn't get a chance to otherwise as Janeway has clearly indicated that at this point she views B'Elanna as a troublemaker who won't be considered for the position) and because he just thinks she's a better engineer than Carey and wants the best possible chance of them succeeding. Janeway sees this as unacceptable. Carey is the chief engineer and so he should be called and Chakotay NOT asking for his opinion is an insult to Carey, Janeway, and might make the crew doubt Chakotay (and by extension the Maquis') loyalty to the Starfleet crew.

At this point it seems that to Janeway integration ["They're not your people"] means the path of least resistance, specifically tailored towards the Starfleet crew. She wants Chakotay by her side to keep the Maquis crew calm but also seems unwilling to consider them for important positions aboard the ship. Though she says that the Maquis are not Chakotay's people, not his crew, she certainly doesn't seem to consider them hers [Compare this to later instances where she stresses 'our' crew, here she simply says they aren't Chakotay's: Whose crew are they? Are they crew at all?]. This less leaves the impression of "We need to be a cohesive team" and more "You're not in charge here." She essentially accuses Chakotay of playing favorites. In her mind Chakotay's actions are not conducive to integrating the crews which would (again, in her mind) mean the Maquis being docile and accepting, obedient and content - not making trouble for the Starfleet crew. Chakotay counters Janeway's accusation with one of his own: That he IS trying to integrate them into the crew but her not allowing the Maquis any opportunity to prove themselves or succeed, not showing any trust in any of them (except, implicitly at this point, him) is making things difficult. At this point the Maquis crew are ready to mutiny on his word at any time. He knows this for a fact. Aside from that looming threat (the threat being that tensions are high and if nothing changes and they remain high there might be a mutiny even without his word) - Chakotay knows these people and trusts them. Though Starfleet and Janeway think of the Maquis as a violent bunch of criminal terrorists, Chakotay and a good number of the Maquis joined because they believed in the cause they were fighting for. These are people Chakotay knows WILL fight fiercely for what they believe in and conversely, AGAINST what they perceive as injustice. Even if they're not in the majority - they're used to picking fights which seem impossible to win. At this point Janeway admits that she ISN'T making it easy for Chakotay to integrate the Maquis - specifically talking about practical concerns; how she doesn't feel she can let Maquis crew have roles of importance on the ship because they lack the ability to hold them. "They don't have the discipline, they don't have the training," - asserting that they just aren't prepared for any such roles and it doesn't have to do with them being Maquis specifically. Ostensibly, she's treating them as she might treat anyone unqualified for the job.

Chakotay maintains that some of them, like B'Elanna, have the ability to be trained - challenging her point by saying that IF they're trained there's no reason for any Maquis member NOT to be given a more prominent role on the ship. He isn't suggesting they just unqualified people important jobs. If the problem is that they aren't trained, let's train them. These people have the ability to succeed if you give them the tools they need and a fair chance, he insists. Janeway then switches gears and her argument becomes not "The Maquis are untrained so they can't be given those jobs" but "The Maquis crew are unworthy of those jobs when compared to Starfleet personnel" saying that it'll cause insult and upset among the Starfleet crew if any member of the Maquis were to be promoted above them. Again, her idea of integration is based more on Maquis subservience to the Starfleet crew than it is the two crews working together. (Not that I believe she looks at it that way, it's just where her 'path of least resistance' leads) - though she accuses Chakotay of being too focused on "his" crew, she is admitting here that she believes her real crew are the Starfleet officers aboard, not the Maquis. She also admits here that the system she wishes to maintain (and is asking Chakotay to enforce) is one where there will ostensibly never be any chance of a Maquis crew member being promoted because no Maquis crew member will ever be more qualified, more worthy, than a member of Starfleet. We can see how it'd be difficult for Chakotay to convince his crew to remain calm under these circumstances. There's also Tuvok's behavior toward him at the beginning of the episode where the Vulcan nearly goes over Chakotay's head and when he doesn't do so (as Chakotay reminds him that HE'S the superior officer, the First Officer in fact,) Tuvok acts as if him backing down (partially) and conceding (partially) to Chakotay's authority is a favor to Chakotay.

Tuvok in this conversation is downright insubordinate to Chakotay. Despite Chakotay being the first officer, he doesn't take what he says seriously, argues that his own opinion on what should be done should be followed rather than Chakotay's, lectures the first officer about his conduct, and then almost seems to threaten him with a report. In Starfleet's rigidly hierarchical rules, acting like this to a superior officer (ESPECIALLY the first officer) wouldn't be tolerated and Tuvok knows this perfectly well. He isn't a rebellious character and clearly in other episodes adheres to these Starfleet hierarchies and codes of conduct very strictly. He values them highly. But Chakotay, a Maquis, shouldn't be First Officer. Why should he be given respect for a title he didn't earn? [Affirming Janeway's argument about how Starfleet officers won't be eager to follow a Maquis senior officer] Even though Chakotay tells Tuvok off for it ["I don't have to explain myself to you"] he doesn't threaten to put Tuvok on report or explicitly mention his insubordination. It's unclear if this is Chakotay's personality or if he just doesn't feel he CAN do that. Tuvok is one of the three most senior officers aboard and very close to Janeway. Chakotay has to think of the optics of any situation at all times - we see seconds after this conversation that rumors have already started swirling around B'Elanna being relegated to quarters that've fanned the flames of mutiny. Though we know Tuvok has personal reasons for behaving the way he does toward Chakotay (which he later admits), I really don't think it'd be out of the ordinary for this to be how most Starfleet personnel would treat the Maquis if they weren't outright hostile: Like they're only pretend crewmen. To a lesser extent we even see this with Janeway: In the following staff meeting, she clearly doesn't consider B'Elanna a viable option when Chakotay brings her up and almost ignores the suggestion entirely.

It also, again, leaves Chakotay in an impossible position. If he doesn't protect and fight for the Maquis crew, they won't ever be considered a true part of the crew and dissatisfaction will likely spread among them. Dissatisfaction which the Starfleet crew will then use to further label the Maquis as insubordinate, uncontrollable, unfit. Not to mention that if he doesn't advocate for them, he might lose their trust. However, if he DOES try to help the Maquis crew advance the Starfleet crew will view this as 'favoritism' and will further distrust him, won't respect the people he puts forth as worthy. Janeway seems to be intent on not advocating for any of the Maquis crew and also seems unwilling to ask that the Starfleet crew grant leniency. She implies that the Maquis crew need to learn to get in line and keep quiet and it seems almost like [we must remember the optics] she has Chakotay as the only Maquis in a position of power to facilitate that. Chakotay recognizes and pushes against that, saying that he won't just be her token Maquis - there only so she can point to him and say "See? We don't discriminate against the Maquis here." effectively a tool used to shut down any arguments of unfair treatment and a tool to quell the Maquis if any talk of mutiny DOES arise. In this model, Janeway can just tell Chakotay to calm them down and they'll listen because they trust him. She also doesn't have to really listen to anything he says: A token First Officer has no authority; his words don't hold weight. [Chakotay isn't Maquis anymore, they aren't his crew anymore - ok. What is he then? What are they? Nothing, without respect.] This plan seems untenable, as much as Janeway frames it as sensible: "I can't make it easy, Commander. Surely you can understand that," and alternatives as impossible "How am I supposed to ask them to accept a Maquis as their superior officer just because circumstances have forced us together?" - in the long run, how would this be sustainable? In any power structure, you cannot expect a group of people you're unwilling to grant trust or agency to obediently follow you forever. This proposed form of 'integration' in which the Maquis are kept on the bottom rung and told intermittently to stay there quietly by the only one of them granted permission to stand at the top would never be sustainable - especially with a group like the Maquis who again, were founded on the belief that its members should fight against inequity and are already on the verge of mutiny.

I specifically find the statement "How am I supposed to ask them to accept a Maquis as their superior officer just because circumstances have forced us together?" to be interesting because personally I'd say that being forced together for the rest of almost everyone's natural life is a pretty good reason to ask people to adapt and Janeway does understand this but only applies it to the Maquis - the Maquis are the ones who have to adapt, not Starfleet. The only thing the Starfleet crew have to do is tolerate their presence on board.

At this point Janeway again claims that if Chakotay can show her a 'qualified' Maquis candidate she'll consider them. I believe this is true but we already know that Janeway's standards for qualification will likely not fit the vast majority of the Maquis and Chakotay ignores the claim in favor of putting forth B'Elanna again, firmly. Janeway predictably dismisses her as unqualified and Chakotay disagrees, arguing that he knows her. He's worked with her. He KNOWS that B'Elanna can excel at the job even if she doesn't meet Starfleet/Janeway's qualifications. He doesn't value those qualifications over what he's observed about her - just as he didn't value Carey's title over what he knew about the gap between his and B'Elanna's abilities. Then, Chakotay switches gears. He admits that Janeway's right - he does view the Maquis as his crew but that's because Janeway (almost self admittingly) doesn't and if he doesn't, who will they have? [What kind of captain, kind of man, would he be?] "You're going to have to give them more authority if you want their loyalty." "Theirs or yours, Commander?" Janeway frames Chakotay's words pointing out the flaws in this plan which I outlined earlier, as almost a threat (if she doesn't have Chakotay's loyalty it'll most definitely mean mutiny). Chakotay asserts that it wasn't a threat, he's only trying to help by telling her how the Maquis crew will react to what she's telling him. "I'm sorry you can't see that" - not an apology for what he said but that she isn't willing to budge, not willing to listen to him and acknowledge that she might be as biased towards her crew as he is towards his. Chakotay is trying his best to acclimate his crew but if Janeway isn't willing to do the same, to talk to her people as he's talking to his, then this will not end well and that isn't a threat. It's just the reality of the situation. He then asks permission to leave, showing he is willing to observe Starfleet protocol (just as when he asked permission to speak freely), and Janeway lets him go, exhaling at the intensity of their debate when alone in her ready room.

[landgraabbed]

played the demo for banquet for fools (dev. hannah and joseph games, launching into early access on september 30th).

i honestly just wanted to share this since this left a very positive impression on me and has all the hallmarks of a turbo lofi production with basically no exposure. so i might as well share in case anybody else wants to check it out.

banquet for fools is a party-based arpg that takes place in a fictional island called invimona. the game casts you as asal in the first act, who immediately gets to work as the other people around them are attacked (and attacking each other, as if they are being compelled to). it is after the first act that you create your four party members who are sent to investigate what happened in the first act.

the combat is simple but an interesting spin on the arpg, formula incorporating a sort of active time battle system that sees a bar fill up until you can perform an action, letting you move around freely as you do so and switch between party members. from what i could tell, currently only basic attacks are implemented, but there seems to be an interesting magic system that allows you to create your own spells. the character creator is surprisingly beefy. you can create characters of any of 5 races that sound interesting from the blurbs. stats and traits are based on a combination of race and sex (which is a slider that features 6 or so combinations of body type and height), in a way that reminds me of morrowind. you can assign stats and skills based on predefined archetypes or you can make your own custom archetype. during conversations, dialogue choices are assigned to each party member depending on their stats and skills. and the art style is gorgeous; it reminds me of claymation. an issue is that it seems that cutscenes are pre-rendered which may be associated with the limited resolutions which i wish were expanded.

overall i found it very interesting, albeit very vague at this point. i do believe the presentation of information could stand to be improved. but there is something very unique and interesting in this title that grabbed my attention. i'll be sure to keep an eye on it!

[midnightfire830]

😏

Stay tuned…It’s new AU time…

[iwritenarrativesandstuff]

I've been thinking about how Vash always seems to be hungry. Or at least, that he's shown eating quite often in the manga. Happily having his salmon sandwiches. Eating an entire box of donuts in the side car. Knowing the conversion rate of bullets to pizza. Seeing a flower and immediately wondering if it's edible. Pondering his life over breakfast. It's a really cute little character detail about him - he likes food.

But then I kind of started to think about the angel arm and its specific brand of destruction. How there were no bodies to be recovered. Nothing but a crater left of July, left on the Fifth Moon. It's all been incinerated. Devoured, even. Tristamp takes it even a step further and makes the power something akin to a black hole - a yawning drain; a constant destructive hunger.

Vash is clearly terrified of this potential for destruction, and for very good reason. But it's not separate from him as some kind of "power he can't control" - it's his arm. It's literally his arm. It is him. Vash is scared of himself, scared of losing control. He does what he can to repress it, even subconsciously (the gaps in his memory whenever it activates). He can't control it in the moment, so he takes steps to preemptively push it down, to avoid the use of his abilities entirely, to hide himself away.

I talked a bit in a previous post about how there are probably several interrelated reasons for Vash's chronically avoidant behaviour, but I'd like to throw one more into the ring and suggest that it's not just a matter of not deserving to want things, but maybe also that he's afraid of wanting. That if he allows himself to even think about what he wants personally that he'll want too much, take too much, and that the only cure in his mind for this is to give and give repeatedly.

I wonder how starved he is for love. Vash loves hard, after all. Once he loves (and I’m not talking about the broad, distant love/compassion he has in general), for better or worse, he carries them around with him forever, long after they've passed. Does he feel like it'd be selfish to admit this kind of want? His love isn't really a passive thing after all - it's the drive at his very core; a mournful inferno he is just barely suppressing. Does he remember how to love in a way that doesn't consume him entirely?

Is that part of the reason he checks out at signs of intimacy? Diverts gifts towards others? Tends to accept kind gestures only when under an assumed name? Intentionally starves himself in Tristamp? Runs and runs and runs? Is he afraid he won't be able to stop hungering? That allowing himself to want means his want will become insatiable?

I just have to wonder how much of his avoidance of connection is being scared that he will cause more destruction (to them? or to him?) by trying to take far too much into his hands than he ever caused by turning his back and running.

...of course I may just be entirely deranged here sorry.

[constantvariations]

I get why people say Wyll/Karlach is enemies-to-lovers but it's missing too many of its signatures for me to agree

By nature, E-t-L's are slow burn. A good chunk of the story waits for one party to discover they're on the wrong side/both parties to realize they have more in common with each other than their factions, then a whole other chunk is dedicated to them learning how to trust each other. The higher the stakes in the story, the slower the burn

Yet everything between Wyll and Karlach is revealed and resolved in a single conversation. There are no lasting consequences of that initial animosity. Both are too good to hold grudges and all the fault lies firmly in hands not their own. Karlach trusts Wyll instantly and he her. Their friendship is so immediate that it's easy to forget that we met Karlach with the intent to kill her

And then there's the source of their quarrel. Wyll was led to believe Karlach's a devil seeking destruction and Karlach was just trying to go home. The thing that sets them against each other isn't their own beliefs or loyalties or anything deep seated and personal, it's the chain of command, something they're both eager to be rid of by the time we meet them. While it gives them something in common, it leaves them with nothing to unpack or overcome together

Compare that to the king of E-t-L's, Zutara of Avatar the Last Airbender. Zuko spent most of the show's runtime trying to capture the Avatar to guarantee the Fire Nation's total conquest, something Katara wants to prevent at all costs. When the two are stuck together by happenstance, they lash out at each other only to bond over their lost mothers. Then Zuko betrays her, something Katara does not forget and does not forgive until he proves himself much, much later. Afterwards, they support each other, watch over the others together, and make a damn good team against Azula. Perfect, should have been canon, fuck Bryke

Honestly, I think Wyllach is just Faerûn's version of a meet-cute

[uncanny-tranny]

There's something so insane to me about being able to create and recreate vintage or even ancient music, clothes, fabrics, building architecture, anything, really.

I watched this video about a lady who knit a WWII-era vest, and it was really unique, because the cable work would eat up yarn, when there were shortages of fibers. This pattern would have likely been used by people to send overseas to soldiers, and now it's being created in a time where this war has been over for generations. What were the people making this pattern thinking of? What about the people making the vest? Could they fathom a world where world wars didn't happen back to back? Could they imagine what peace felt like, or did it fade like a distant memory, a faint friend? All we have now are the remnants of their efforts, a "simple" vest that would warm the bodies of countless people the knitter would never have imagined were here on earth with them.

We're reaching across time to learn about other people - we're reaching our hands out just to grasp anything tangible. And when we've take hold of something, all we can do is say I love you I love you I love you

[batsplat]

do you have any favorite tennis matches? what's your favorite player and rivalry if you have one?

(note, I will be leaving both agassi + sampras out of this post as they have already been discussed in a fair bit of detail on this blog, though I might at some point make a post specifically about their matches. obviously they'd be pretty high up in all three categories with regards to favourite matches, players, and rivalries)

I have a lot of favourite tennis matches!! I'll throw a few of them under the cut, but honestly give me half a chance and I'll go on forever. my all time favourite tennis match is the 2003 us open semifinal between justine henin and jennifer capriati. it is available in full on youtube and I think you should watch it even if you have only the slightest interest in tennis. this is a match you need to experience for yourself and I will not spoil the result, but it features basically everything you could ask for:

very high stakes, both in terms of being a slam semi and for both players involved. it's an interesting stretch of henin's career, plenty of controversies that season and the potential for a rematch with countrywoman clijsters in the final. capriati during her noughties career revival had FINALLY managed to overcome her issues in late stages of slams and had won three of them... but her home slam at the us open was the one she wanted to win most of all. a history of semifinal choking she was attempting to conquer in front of her home crowd - fighting a woman six years her junior who had already tasted slam success that year

two very different personalities, the cold and calculating henin against the ferocious and passionate capriati... both not strangers to a little bit of gamesmanship, and of course you see that on display in this match too. keep an eye on the poor line judges

two contrasting but similarly engaging playstyles, the boisterous force of capriati coming up against henin's lethally elegant all-court game. henin's one handed backhand better than sex question mark. it's a great stylistic match-up, and produces some excellent tennis across the entire span of the match. just SUCH a great watch, like I really cannot speak highly enough of the level on display

a highly involved crowd who want their home favourite to win SO BADLY and are more than happy to do anything to help her cause. gets a bit wild, like the best us open matches tend to do

some truly insane momentum switches, many prompted by psychology and some prompted by physicality. one player's body starts letting her down in the final set in pretty striking fashion. one player's mind plays havoc with her, possibly even more memorably so. a very dramatic finale

the cruelty of tennis on full display. a match where you suffer for both players, who both want it so badly and are visibly fighting demons on the court. truly, truly brutal for the loser

I love this match so so much. I know it's very on-brand to direct you to a match from over two decades ago, but I promise you. it's worth it. sometimes the old stuff is the best

and do I EVER have a favourite player and rivalry!!!!!!

MY GIRLS. okay, look, they're both extremely retired and had their last match in 2010 BUT it is still my favourite rivalry!!!!!!! here, have another bit of my output for them:

wE hAvE aLwaYs ProTEcTEd tHis iMAge oF friENdShip tHat nEVeR eXistEd istgggggggg NOTHING WAS BROKEN BETWEEN US BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO BREAK

if you've ever heard someone be extremely annoying about federer's game, you probably can imagine what I sound like talking about henin. she's got my favourite backhand of all time, I genuinely think it is a work of art. I love how she moves, the way she unleashes on balls on the run, I love how she gets into the court in such a lithe and precise manner to pick up the next ball. I love how effective the serve is despite her height (number one commentating cliché for her lol, she's short we get it). the slices, the gorgeous drop volleys, the laser straight forehand... and again, the backhand. when she takes a swing at that thing and fucking pummels it past her opponent, stretches her wings to make the ball soar, it's just truly my favourite shot of all time. there's a specific backhand crosscourt on-the-run pass she hits in that aforementioned us open semifinal where... yeah. what can you even say. better than sex full stop

and well... okay, look, I am AWARE a lot of fans still hate her and I do get that she won't be everyone's cup of tea. but y'know. sometimes you just have to support women's rights and wrongs, and I do think some of the criticism of her is also a bit overblown. she's a cheater, yes, I won't argue with that. but I think sometimes cheating is interesting!! she really really really really needed to win, she was cold and ruthless about it - but also, I'm sorry, people would NOT have hated her quite so much if she were a man. and I'm also not saying a sad life story justifies cheating etc etc, but I do wish people were a bit more interested in why she needed to win so badly. she also has the number one athlete attribute that makes my brain go crazy - a deeply conflicted relationship with the sport itself. always caught between running towards and running away from tennis... yeah. god

the single best resource in tennis is a website called tennisabstract, it really is fantastic, I've contributed a bit to their match coding project before and definitely will again when my schedule's freed up a bit. I have a lot of time for the guy who runs it, I really do. there's this series he did, tennis 128, where he listed the top 128 players of all time according to his metric and wrote a piece for each of them... and I think they're all very interesting, it's a great project. but. there's a good chance henin got the most negative write-up of the lot, in a way I have to admit I take issue with. some excerpts:

well, tough luck. I don't care. the lgbt community has forgiven justine henin. look at what a cute tomboy she was as a teenager:

look at her holding a bird trophy:

wifey

the other half of that rivalry is her fellow belgian clijsters. very much a case of two narratives haunting each other!! do not separate!! anyhow, she's another player with a game I absolutely adore, these big scything groundstrokes but ALSO plenty of variety, like we're not talking a dull baseline basher here. and the movement!! sliding on a hard court is STILL pretty rare in the women's game, so it's very much seen as something associated with clijsters and clijsters alone:

life changing thighs is what I'll say

clijsters was everything henin was not - warm, popular in the locker room and with fans, a cheery outgoing personality who always had plenty of people rooting for her. she was also seen as too nice to win. and there are few things on this planet that get me going more than a choker. than somebody who just... freezes in the most important matches of her life. which for a while there had a nasty habit of involving henin, because of course they did

clijster's another one with a really fascinating career arc, one that is inextricably linked with henin's story - and thing is, she did get her happy ending. she's the feel-good story, proof that even chokers might be able to make it in the end. she conquered her demons... one of the very, very, very few to do so. she changed the narrative of her career completely. now I DO hate how this kinda... low key gets implicitly used as another stick to thwack henin with, this kind of, ooh!! look!! you can be a good person and be successful too!! which! idk. god forbid we root for a flawed athlete now and again. but I think this does a disservice to clijsters - not least because she WAS pretty nasty about henin in a way she wasn't about basically anyone else. henin and clijsters are more than just sinner and saint... don't let tennis fans tell you otherwise

and yeah, the two of them obviously had a bit of an emotionally tortured rivalry. belgium cooked up two insanely good tennis players born exactly one year and one week apart, the only two players of that stature the country has ever produced. they made each other better and they made each other worse. friends and enemies and something in between... and in the end, fundamentally inseparable. citadels have been built on less

anyway tbh I'm not going to pretend like anyone is summoning up that kind of narrative juice these days, but obviously I still have my faves. as regular blog readers may be aware, my favourite current player is this washed string bean who mostly just loses to more talented players and throws tantrums these days. I'll support him until his time runs up though. medvedev's got this fantastically unorthodox game that I could dissect all day, he's the smartest top player, he's funny as shit. his game should never have worked and he has no right to be as successful as he is. I could hold a lecture series on his forehand. I'm very much a pusher-inclined fan... I like counterpunchers, I like players who run around a lot and defend, and I also like tacticians. I was a pretty early adopter because I love a quirky playstyle and weird technique, which was then affirmed with the miami 2018 debacle (iykyk). but there was a moment I knew I would be his fan for life, and if you are a tennis fan you can probably guess what's coming:

"so I want all of you to know, when you sleep tonight, I won because of you" I fell in love

never ever has he let me down on the drama front. his "oops I did it again" basel 2018 instagram post, his "I think I killed someone? my apologies" from us open 2020, "if I die, who'll take responsibility" from olympics 2021, the "it's easier to enjoy life when you have no brain" paris 2021 monologue, the yawn at turin 2021, stomping on the ground davis cup 2021, the "his father can talk every point" ao 2022 rant, "I'm gonna pee as slow as this court" from iw 2023, when he got rid of the singles stick monte carlo 2023 plus the "look at yourself in the mirror" press conference comment, "vamo vamo vamo" from uso 2023... I could keep going. "shut your fuck up" has become a part of my vocabulary icl. I love his press conferences and watch a lot of them, just consistently a very interesting guy to listen to. he is unfortunately sort of hellish to follow as a fan, but y'know. sometimes it's not just trophies that make the journey worth it (cope)

women's tennis, my actual faves have basically disappeared from the scene this year so I'm not even gonna dignify them by mentioning their names. I am pretty ride-or-die for dasha kasatkina, a useless pusher who's also the wta's highest ranked lesbian and makes a vlog with her girlfriend I definitely recommend. I like her tennis a lot in all its horrendous pushing, she's very sweet and fun and produces an obscene number of cute photos with her girlfriend. beyond that, I suppose I am basically a swiatek and sabalenka fan this year, I find both of them highly engaging in different ways, I love how they're like... actually very good but are also seemingly constantly fighting demons. basically the two most compelling players in the game currently TO ME. I'm really really enjoying their rivalry, my main complaint is that I wish they played more (praying iga's new coach fixes her during the off-season). they produced by far the best match this year, madrid final, which I'd also absolutely recommend. but yeah, I generally vibe with all the top players of the women's game, if to differing extents!! really strong era at the minute that also promises to keep getting better. we pray

anyhow. a few more favourite matches - I'm going to try and hold myself back, because I really could go on forever. a lot of the old matches I watch are from noughties wta, but I'll limit myself because I'm aware this really is probably of interest to nobody and give just a further two - sharapova/henin wta finals 2007 and venus/davenport wimbledon 2005. both pretty normie picks, but sometimes the normie picks are normie picks for a reason

for my sins, I do have a few big three matches in fairly regular rotation, typically on in the background when I'm working. main ones are djokovic/federer us open 2011, djokovic/federer wimbledon 2019, djokovic/federer wimbledon 2014, and djokovic/nadal roland garros 2021. I also have a bunch of murray matches in rotation but I tend to mix it up for him more... my other go-to run is all of leylah fernandez's pre-final us open 2021 matches, which are just consistently bonkers in the best possible way. there's a few other recent-ish matches I really like to revisit, like iga/sublanko madrid 2023, fernandez/osorio monterrey 2022, kerber/juvan strasbourg 2022...

and then, of the more recent-ish men's matches, pretty obvious where my biases lie. medvedev/djokovic cincy 2019, med/wawrinka uso 2019, med/nadal atp finals 2020, med/thiem atp finals 2020, med/djokovic uso 2021, med/sinner atp finals 2021 (conceptually hilarious match), med/faa ao 2022 (go-to flight match, this one), med/tsi ao 2022, rune/djokovic paris 2022 (and honestly that whole rune run), med/zverev monte carlo 2023 (don't feel great about including this but I'd be lying if I said I didn't love it), rune/sinner monte carlo 2023, rune/foki madrid 2023, med/alcaraz uso 2023 (I promised I'd sing the american national anthem if he won that match so that's a voice note that still exists out there)... and so on

I could keep going, but I'll cut myself off here. and end things with my personal favourite instagram post tennis has produced. from after the aforementioned rune/foki madrid match:

'personally I hold nothing against the Spanish people' dw king I'll do it for you

[ccbatman]

actually so evil how much of hal's internal world gets obliterated with the rewriting of his relationships with jessica and martin.

[hetagrammy]

I’m attached to the idea of Arthur being born post-Rome for migration/cultural reasons, but I’ve been thinking a lot about how that might have shaped him. I don’t think there’s much to add on the setting, most people are aware of England effectively being post-apocalyptic during late antiquity and the early middle ages. However, on top of that I think the memory of Rome imparted to him by others juxtaposed with that is really interesting. He’s not like his mother and siblings who lived directly in fear of Roman occupation and subjugation, but he’s effectively the villain in his bedtime stories. Even though he’s gone, the ghost of him remains in the British Isles family’s behaviors and experiences. Even after their mother’s death, they all hole up in mountains and monasteries to hide for ages until they get the courage to approach the sea again, finally believing there to be nothing beyond it to fear anymore.

And yet, Arthur walks around these abandoned baths and aqueducts and wonders how evil could he truly have been? He brought them these wonders from the Continent, surely there must have been a hint of kindness. Arthur’s naïveté obviously wears off and he trusts his mother’s words more, but I think that his musings linger. It’s his first lesson in empire, even if he doesn’t understand it yet: hide the imperial knife behind a cloak of benevolence, and one day their children will forget why they ever had cause to despise you. They may even aspire toward the ideal you put in place.

[cent-scratchnsniff]

progressing through the myth of sisyphus again