#haven't posted this documentary in a while

[cleopatragirlie]

Me when I have to clean:

[loregoddess]

So, I started thinking a bit too hard about this post here, wrote something up, let it sit in the drafts for a day bc I wrote most of it half-awake before work early in the morning while suffering IBS pain, and wanted to check it later, and decided I did in fact need to get this out of my system bc I've spent an unfathomable amount of time thinking about 3H and enjoy writing in-depth analyses for fun, and then I wrote the rest of it half-asleep late at night, still suffering from IBS pain, rip. (I did at least take time to edit at a later time though).

Anyhow the initial post that got me writing was talking about how insane the eastern/northern houses in the AM route were, since Houses Fraldarius and Gautier (and a few other minor houses of the eastern/northern Faerghus territories) were able to stave off the Empire's attempts to conquer them for a whole 5+ years resulting in a deadlock. Like, with all the resources Edelgard has at her disposal (both from the Empire, and from the Agarthans), she cannot squash the last resistance in Faerghus. And then I was like, "I get the joke here, but actually this reminds me of something from The Art of War, and might actually be good writing."

(full analysis continued below bc it's basically a short essay)

I actually think the writing for this specific part of the story is kind of ingenious since it takes historic military strategy into consideration for how the last of the Faerghus lords should have acted to best optimize their chances of survival. Sun Tzu explains how soldiers tend to act in dire situations in The Art of War, Chapter XI:

23. Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. 24. Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard. [...] 58. Place your army in deadly peril, and it will survive; plunge it into desperate straits, and it will come off in safety. 59. For it is precisely when a force has fallen into harm's way that is capable of striking a blow for victory.

(quotes cited from here)

By this logic, we can assume it is because the last of the Faergus lords have everything to lose if they're defeated (their lands, their lives, their peoples' safety, their way of life and culture) and everything to gain if they manage to win, that they fight as if they're already dead, because in a sense they are.

Sylvain actually displays a different, but similar mindset in his monastery dialogue during Chapter 22 of Verdant Wind:

[image transcript: "Sylvain: I mean, I'll still fight like I want to die because that's worked so far, and why change at this late date, right?"]

(for context this is said in reaction to the prospect of fighting against the risen Nemesis's army, you can read the full conversation here)

So we know that the idea of the "my choices are to fight like hell or die, so I might as well fight" mindset is present at least in the Gautier house, and considering the military history of Faerghus it would make sense that all the major houses teach and utilize military strategies. The Art of War also has an entire chapter dedicated to the importance of spies, and it's implied or outright stated several times in both Houses and Hopes that House Gautier has one of the most expansive information networks in all of Fodlan, on par with House Vestra's, Judith's, and Yuri's spy networks.

Therefore it makes a lot of sense actually that even if it's just Houses Fraldarius and Gautier, and a few other minor lords, that they'd be able to hold out, since they were the military powerhouses in Faerghus and also the "best" equipped (decent home resources as compared to Galatea's territory, best spy network of Faerghus, long military history, more military experience, a strong reason to fight to the death, etc.) of the remaining Faerghus noble houses to put up a last-ditch resistance and actually manage to hold out.

Actually I want to expand on my "more military experience" note there. Insofar as I can tell, the Empire actually has the least amount of recent military experience, while Faerghus probably has the most. I say this because it's made very clear that Faerghus, specifically House Gautier, has been fighting off invasions from Sreng for decades, if not several generations of Gautiers (according to the account of Laetitia Gautier fighting off the first invasion from Sreng, from Hopes). Furthermore, the attacks from Sreng are frequent and recurring, enough so that Lambert led a campaign against Sreng. So all the eastern/northern houses of Faerghus have had constant military praxis for decades.

The only other major family to have similar and recent military experiences would be House Goneril, which often repels attacks from Almyra. It was an invasion from Almyra which prompted the formation of the Officers Academy, and yet no such response was ever made to Sreng. In fact, Sreng and Faerghus's struggles with them seem to be entirely unknown to the rest of Fodlan, or at least ignored. Which means that while Holst Goneril gains fame for his might on the battlefield, no one in Fodlan really knows about the strength of the eastern/northern houses of Faerghus.

The only major military conflict the Empire had to deal with in recent events leading up to the start of the game's story was the Dagda and Brigid war, which was resolved within a year's time and resulted in the complete destruction of House Nuvelle, which is far from a clean victory. The only notable person associated with that war is Count Bergliez, making him the foremost expert on military strategy in Edelgard's army. Edelgard herself started a multi-front war in her late teens with literally no actual military experience. (Not to say the training at the Officers Academy was useless, but military education and a handful of field battles are not the same as prolonged warfare).

Sure, Edelgard has the Agarthans, but even if we assume that the same major Agarthans have been cybernetically transferring their souls from one host body into new host bodies when needed, they don't technically have "war" experience since their MO is to act in the shadows, sowing chaos and discord. They don't know how to manage an army (and even if some of the Agarthans, like Thalas, had survived from the initial war with Sothis, and would technically have knowledge of warfare, that war ended with the near-annihilation of the world, so it seems foolish to assume they have any practical knowledge of military strategy).

So, Edelgard starts this multi-front war, and has to divide her resources between the Faerghus front and the Leicester front, and since everyone in Fodlan knows of Holst's battlefield prowess, she decides to have Count Bergliez hold down the Leicester front, leaving Faerghus to be dealt with by the Agarthans through Cornelia. And sure, Cornelia succeeds in winning the western lords to her side and toppling the capital, executing Rufus and attempting to kill Dimitri, but neither she nor the western houses have the same sort of experience with war the way the eastern/northern houses do because of Sreng. And everyone consistently underestimates the strength of the eastern/northern houses, possibly especially Cornelia bc she's an Agarthan and thinks herself above humans to begin with.

So between the fact that Cornelia (and technically Edelgard) didn't start off by taking the eastern/northern houses seriously, and the fact that Houses Fraldarius and Gautier and the surrounding territories were backed into a corner with everything to lose and everything to fight to the death for, it really does make sense that a deadlock would result on that specific battlefront, and not just solely because of the military culture of Faerghus.

(To be entirely fair, Edelgard is more or less doomed to lose the war she started in every timeline except CF, where the key variables are significantly different, because of her lack of military experience, mismanagement of resources and assets, and a general lack of understanding and knowledge of the rest of Fodlan, paired with the fact that her and the Agarthans are at odds from the start, so there's a ton of internal rifts and clashing objectives within her forces. Like, she really wasn't going to win from a strategic perspective. Why the Agarthans never use their orbital missiles to deal with Fraldarius and Gautier is beyond me, and why Edelgard didn't sieze Garreg Mach and use it as a strategic stronghold is also beyond me--on a Watsonian level at least. The writing for the Agarthans is consistently lackluster, so with the writing for eastern/northern Faerghus's military might being logically solid, I'll take my wins where I can).

[jlf23tumble]

Probably bc I’m deferring all work (in my head at least) to January - i find myself totally fascinated by this TR/harry ‘relationship on the rocks’ article retraction. According to publicists, that’s a pretty rare occurrence based on key fact(s) being wrong or omitted to prevent defamation suits. I find it odd out of all the articles written over 10+ years, this one Harry’s team wanted pulled (thinking about the “air hostess” or Dan W’s 2022 Harry is hetero and playing gay articles)- even if it is false and he and Taylor R are in love bc many secure couples have these tabloid nonsense published and ignore it. So I suppose it could have been her team. In any case a simple rebuttal to such an article could just be them seen together? Any thoughts or do I need to actually to focus on my job lol

I'm kind of obsessed with the idea of your job being something intense like brain surgeon, and this ask being like should I operate on this guy orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr start pondering Harry/Taylor 2.0?? I'm here for it!! But also, whut? I haven't seen any news or retractions, is there a link (or a blog I should lurk) for it? My hunch is that someone's timing was off or a gun got jumped, and it very well COULD be her team, she's not an idiot or someone who's not famous in her own right, but help me out with some context! And then get back to that brain surgery as soon as you send it!!

[petermorwood]

Recently I got roped (ha) into an Age of Sail roleplay, and decided I wanted to play the ship's cook. I then realized I don't know too much about provisioning a ship in the Age of Sail! I figured you'd be the sort of fellow to know where I could find resources on that kind of information though?

Well, for a start I recommend sending a similar Ask to @ltwilliammowett (Beat To Quarters) who knows far more about The Age of Sail / Wooden Ships & Iron Men subject than I do.

*****

In the meanwhile here are a couple of books, both of which you may well be able to get through your library, or buy pretty cheaply for your research library. They're also an entertaining read.

The first was recommended to me by Terry Pratchett - "'If you haven't read it, you should!" - when we were at a con together and he was researching "Nation".

It's "Feeding Nelson's Navy" by Janet MacDonald, available here as an ebook and from Amazon as a Kindle Unlimited free read.

The second is "Lobscouse & Spotted Dog" by Anne Chotzinoff Grossman & Lisa Grossman Thomas.

Funny how both books use the same period image - "Shipmates Carousing Below Decks" by William Pyne - as cover art.

"Lobscouse" deals with the same period as "Navy", while also being the author-approved official cookbook of Patrick O'Brian's "Aubrey / Maturin" novels.

Here's a Reddit about making dishes from it, and here's a blog page about making Spotted Dog and why Suet Makes a Difference.

I've already posted about the role correct cooking fats play in making traditional dishes "taste right", and since Atora brand makes both carnivore and vegetarian suets, it's worth tracking down.

Here's a blog page which summarises the Age of Sail diet - think of it as an exam crib to tide you over until you get the books and learn more.

*****

Here's Max Miller of "Tasting History" making lobscouse:

And here are Dylan Hollis and Max making that ubiquitous on-board delicacy and culinary ingredient, ship's biscuit (hardtack / hard-tack / hard tack).

Something very similar was still issued as a ration item at the beginning of the 20th century and into World War One. J.R.R. Tolkien would certainly have encountered Biscuits, Ration, H&P, Army No.4...

...and may well have used them as a basis for the waybread "cram" as mentioned in "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". This description has the ring (hah!) of familiarity about it.

"If you want to know what cram is, I can only say that I don’t know the recipe; but it is biscuitish, keeps good indefinitely, is supposed to be sustaining, and is certainly not entertaining, being in fact very uninteresting except as a chewing exercise." "The Hobbit" ch.13, "Not at Home"

No.4 biscuits were so hard that soldiers could use them as substitutes for wood...

...and Nelson's sailors probably did the same with theirs.

*****

Terry Pratchett took this wooden quality and - with the dial turned up to eleven - transformed it into the rocky quality of Dwarf bread.

Here's a health nut's real-life version of a healthy nut loaf...

...while this is an example of sedimentary conglomerate rock.

With a bit of judicious cropping, the captions could be swapped and a casual glance would never notice.

Of course this post wouldn't be complete without a certain GIF.

So...

*****

To finish, a few links to more video.

One (12 years ago).

Two - 1 year, including some of the ship's biscuit made in that first one (!)

Three - also 1 year, featuring other dishes - pease pudding ("dog's body"), lobscouse and plum duff. Oh, and ship's biscuit ...

Those are from Townsends, another great source for 18th century food and cooking.

This last example is by Dan Snow, in an extract from a longer History Hits documentary, and is a short general overview of period Navy rations - and of course, ship's biscuit... :->

HTH !

[astrobiscuits]

Astro observations part 6

🪻Individuals with Sun in Taurus degrees (2,14,26) are always thinking about money - how they can earn more money, what to spend it on. If it's in Scorpio or conjuncts Pluto, they'll often lie about how much money they actually have just to profit off of you. You'll often hear them say "I don't have any money" but secretly have stash of money hidden in their house

🪻Not only do Aquarius Suns have a lot of friends, they also befriend the shy/awkward/forgotten kid (me). I haven't noticed this with other Sun signs

🪻People with Venus in Leo/Leo degrees (5,17,29) often get complimented on their thick hair

🪻Asteroid Fraga (1105) conjuncting any of your planets/angles/nodes indicates your love for strawberries lol

🪻 Check your Moon in Webb (3041) Persona chart. It gives you more insight on the type of content you like to consume on the internet. You can also take into consideration the degree of your Moon

Aries 🌙 - *watches sports matches live*; *laughs at stupid, childish memes *

Taurus 🌙 - the one who always searches for tutorials; "how to bake lava cake", "how to remove a stripped screw"; hmm, maybe i should move *searches houses for sale*;

Gemini 🌙 - *watches memes*, doesn't care what kind of meme it is as long as it's a meme; *scrolls endlessly on r/todayilearned*

Cancer 🌙 - *watches baby videos*; the type that reads family drama posted on reddit, but also regularly checks what their own relatives post on social media

Leo 🌙 - the newest tea on their fav celebrities; they're the first to know what Zendaya ate this morning, where Tom Hanks went on vacation yesterday and if Kylie Jenner is pregnant again; awww a kitty *ends up in an endless loophole of cat videos*

Virgo 🌙 - "declutter with me" videos, "clean with me" videos; *checks their fav blog every day*; *watches workout videos while working out*; *checks e-mails 20 times a day*; ugh, i need to take a break *watches pet videos*

Libra 🌙 - "get ready with me for..." videos, "OOTD" videos, make-up tutorials; their pinterest is full of outfit inspo and aesthetic house decor; "red/green flags in a guy/girl" videos, "first date do's and don'ts" videos

Scorpio 🌙 - *watches every true crime documentary out there*; "Michael Jackson spirit box session"; time to do the deed *watches p8rn*

Sagittarius 🌙 - *saves bible verses all the time*; searches "how to manifest everything you want", obsessed with Neville Goddard content (i'm so sorry, i'm guilty of this); *decides to go on a spontaneous trip, so they end up watching travel videos*

Capricorn 🌙 - the type that doesn't use the internet for entertainment much; actually, you'd be surprised by how little they use their phone compared to the average person; probably has a daily time limit set on their phones, *reads memoirs and biographies*,

Aquarius 🌙 - twitch is their life basically; if they're not watching someone play a video game, then they're playing a video game; *follows LGBTQ+ content during pride month*

Pisces 🌙 - they're listening to music 24/7, has a playlist for every mood they're going through, *watches tangled for the 7th time in a row*; actually, they're always watching a tv series if not for a disney movie

🪻I noticed that most film directors (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Tarantino) have got Neptune in Gemini or Neptune in Gemini degrees (3,15,27). Besides Hitchcock, they also don’t have any aspect between Neptune and Mercury

[beautiful-basque-country]

I saw something on TV once, I think it was a National Geographic show, where they mentioned that theory that Basque is perhaps the only surviving language from when Neanderthals were alive. Do you mind me asking why you mentioned in that recent post you didn’t want to comment on the theory?

Is it because most people use it as a racist attack? Deplorable, and those people deserve to be smacked.

The show did like a 15 minute segment on the theory and went over how the language is an isolate and compared to other languages, while it is evolving, it hasn’t really been changed/impacted by other languages. So ultimately the current language and older forms of it aren’t drastically different, unlike how something like modern English and Old English are basically two different languages at this point. They then said it’s likely that if any writing existed from the Neanderthal period anyone who knew Basque would probably be able to read it and speak whatever was written without much difficulty.

I just thought it was so cool something could be so well taken care of and respected that it basically hasn’t changed. Fascinating to think someone today could hold a conversation with someone else from so long ago! Lord knows I’d be screwed if you dropped me into the Middle Ages and told me to go speak to King Alfred.

Even Latin! We have no idea how it was actually spoken and how anything was pronounced. We’re just guessing.

Sorry if other people toss that theory at you to insult you!

Kaixo anon!

Thanks for your message!

I have to clarify the post you mentioned was a reblog and I just added the last pic, so you'd have to ask OP about why they don't wanna comment on that theory ^_~.

That said, no: I don't care what that documentary said, Basque is not the language of the Neanderthals. They're believed to have appeared around 200,000 years ago and disappeared 40,000 years ago; even if we consider that Basque was a descendant of their language - and that's assuming Neanderthals spoke a single language, from Europe to Asia - it's completely impossible that a 21st-century Basque speaker could understand this presumed original Neanderthal language.

The Hand of Irulegi - an artifact around 3,500 years old - displays a Vasconic text and nobody knows what it says, and that's knowing that Vasconic was an ancestor of nowadays Euskara. Even nowadays, a Spanish speaker can't understand Latin - except maybe a couple of words - and Spanish diverged from Latin not too long ago, around the 10-11th century. Can you imagine a 40,000 years gap between two languages??

And of course Basque have been impacted by the surrounding languages. Basque people haven't lived isolated in an island with no contact whatsoever with other peoples, quite on the contrary, we've lived with many cultures thoughout our history, from Iberians to Romans, to Franks, to Berbers and Arabs, to Spaniards. Basque has influences of all of them, be it loanwords or more technical remains. As you say, it's an evolving language that hasn't started evolving now, it's been doing it for millennia!

Regarding the theory being thrown as a racist attack, don't worry, it isn't! It all comes from genetics and genetic studies that show some very little differences in Basque people. In some of these studies it was concluded that Basque and Asturians, probably due to the difficult geography of our regions, were left more isolated from the Iron Age on, and hence we have the oldest lineage in Iberia. This is explained by guessing that these populations were less multiethnic and probably more endogamic. Given this situation, the DNA is slightly different - slightly! - and we have more DNA that comes directly from prehistory than the rest. Period.

But there's this obstinacy to take Basque people - just like Aztecs or Ancient Egyptians - as a mystery because there are many gaps in our history and language that science hasn't still explained and some people feel the need to fill them with crazy theories. Like the one that said that Neanderthals didn't go extinct but that nowadays they're known as.. Basques! When we already know that Neanderthals were a completely different species from Homo Sapiens: so if modern Basques are Homo Sapiens now as we know we are, I'm sorry, but we're no longer Neanderthals if we ever were.

Sorry for the long answer!

[reasonsforhope]

"Major technology companies signed a pact on Friday to voluntarily adopt "reasonable precautions" to prevent artificial intelligence (AI) tools from being used to disrupt democratic elections around the world.

Executives from Adobe, Amazon, Google, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, and TikTok gathered at the Munich Security Conference to announce a new framework for how they respond to AI-generated deepfakes that deliberately trick voters. 

Twelve other companies - including Elon Musk's X - are also signing on to the accord...

The accord is largely symbolic, but targets increasingly realistic AI-generated images, audio, and video "that deceptively fake or alter the appearance, voice, or actions of political candidates, election officials, and other key stakeholders in a democratic election, or that provide false information to voters about when, where, and how they can lawfully vote".

The companies aren't committing to ban or remove deepfakes. Instead, the accord outlines methods they will use to try to detect and label deceptive AI content when it is created or distributed on their platforms. 

It notes the companies will share best practices and provide "swift and proportionate responses" when that content starts to spread.

Lack of binding requirements

The vagueness of the commitments and lack of any binding requirements likely helped win over a diverse swath of companies, but disappointed advocates were looking for stronger assurances.

"The language isn't quite as strong as one might have expected," said Rachel Orey, senior associate director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 

"I think we should give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge that the companies do have a vested interest in their tools not being used to undermine free and fair elections. That said, it is voluntary, and we'll be keeping an eye on whether they follow through." ...

Several political leaders from Europe and the US also joined Friday’s announcement. European Commission Vice President Vera Jourova said while such an agreement can’t be comprehensive, "it contains very impactful and positive elements".  ...

[The Accord and Where We're At]

The accord calls on platforms to "pay attention to context and in particular to safeguarding educational, documentary, artistic, satirical, and political expression".

It said the companies will focus on transparency to users about their policies and work to educate the public about how they can avoid falling for AI fakes.

Most companies have previously said they’re putting safeguards on their own generative AI tools that can manipulate images and sound, while also working to identify and label AI-generated content so that social media users know if what they’re seeing is real. But most of those proposed solutions haven't yet rolled out and the companies have faced pressure to do more.

That pressure is heightened in the US, where Congress has yet to pass laws regulating AI in politics, leaving companies to largely govern themselves.

The Federal Communications Commission recently confirmed AI-generated audio clips in robocalls are against the law [in the US], but that doesn't cover audio deepfakes when they circulate on social media or in campaign advertisements.

Many social media companies already have policies in place to deter deceptive posts about electoral processes - AI-generated or not... 

[Signatories Include]

In addition to the companies that helped broker Friday's agreement, other signatories include chatbot developers Anthropic and Inflection AI; voice-clone startup ElevenLabs; chip designer Arm Holdings; security companies McAfee and TrendMicro; and Stability AI, known for making the image-generator Stable Diffusion.

Notably absent is another popular AI image-generator, Midjourney. The San Francisco-based startup didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The inclusion of X - not mentioned in an earlier announcement about the pending accord - was one of the surprises of Friday's agreement."

-via EuroNews, February 17, 2024

--

Note: No idea whether this will actually do much of anything (would love to hear from people with experience in this area on significant this is), but I'll definitely take it. Some of these companies may even mean it! (X/Twitter almost definitely doesn't, though).

Still, like I said, I'll take it. Any significant move toward tech companies self-regulating AI is a good sign, as far as I'm concerned, especially a large-scale and international effort. Even if it's a "mostly symbolic" accord, the scale and prominence of this accord is encouraging, and it sets a precedent for further regulation to build on.

[mantequillamcwhoremick]

How did you come up with the plot to Chaos Plan??

YIPPPEEEEE ANOTHER ONE!!!! HEHEHEH THANKS FOR THE ASK

Omg I LOVE this question. I'll never get sick of answering that, so like warning for long post incoming 😈😈😈😈

I talk about my inspirations a lot on this post and also in the end notes on some chapters, especially chapter 10 and chapter 20, and I always pinpoint the scene from TFBW where Butters/Chaos talks to the others through the screens of U-Stor-It as "the moment where it all started," so I guess I can talk about something different now😁😁😁I might still repeat myself a lot though lmao so sorry about that.

The Premise: Butters' Disappearance and Detective Harris

Fun fact: the summary on ao3 is actually the first thing I ever wrote for the fic, and I feel like it still holds up.

I debated for a long time whether I actually wanted to write this story, because the idea of it fascinated me so much but I was scared to commit to such a big project. But then I read this pitch to my best friend and they were FASCINATED, and that was kind of the push I needed. I haven't looked back since.

The premise of Harris hiring Mysterion (despite either of their desire to work with each other) was something deeply inspired from the premise of Six of Crows, a book I reread at least once a year. I love crime and heist stories, especially when the criminals in question are sad little losers with questionable motivations and morals, and I feel like Mysterion getting HIRED to stop Chaos is a story that wrote itself. Especially since I wanted the added backstory to be that Butters disappeared after a tragic event, kickstarted by the aforementioned TFBW scene that made me immediately think of Jinx from Arcane. That's why I implemented all those visual bits and pieces of Chaos grafitti-ing the town, particularly places associated with childhood (playgrounds, the basketball court), and decorations that make you think of a kid's birthday party (like the fairy lights).

Mysterion and Chaos

In my notes on chapter 20 I talk in detail about my thought process on Chaos and Mysterion's villain and vigilante identities and their respective modi operandi, which is something that drove the development of this story a lot.

I'm a huge character psychology nerd, so I really wanted to write a story where these two characters drive the plot fueled by their fascinating canon skills, backstories and trauma in the given canon setting. A story that illustrates in great detail how they would operate in a hero/villain story while keeping the story as close to canon (or canon equivalents) as possible.

"Professor" Chaos being an entrepreneur-type scammer & hacker villain was an idea that I found baffling to not be as widely represented as I'd expect it to be (especially given the existence of Vic Chaos???), so I took it upon myself to realize my dreams lmao. This involved a lot of research on scams and cyber-crime and everything computers and crypto (I'm a tech illiterate. this was painful bro) so I watched a bunch of documentaries on a bunch of different assholes lol. (I'd be happy to share which those where if anyone's interested hghaahah) Thankfully my mom works in a cybersecurity-adjacent job so I know a bunch of fun facts like that you can actually get hacked with a QR-code! the more you know

The Plot and Shit

Whenever I have a story idea the first thing I do is pull out this bad boy

and make myself think about all the crucial plot points that could be represented by each beat sample. (I used to have the "Save The Cat" novelwriting book and it honestly changed how I think about story structure).

Even though a lot of the original first outline drafts don't really end up representing what the story looks like in the end, it does make me think about necessary beats to keep the tension up and have it flow nicely, and the vague idea of the crucial beats does usually hold up. Originally, the moment where Kenny finds out Chaos is Butters was meant to be the "midpoint" but I ended up focusing on a bunch of other stuff in the plot that I'd probably determine the moment the roof of City Hall blowing up as the "midpoint" now.

But these scenes were among those I knew I wanted in the story since the beginning:

Harris hiring Mysterion

Mysterion and Chaos talking at U-Stor-It

Kenny running into Butters

Kenny and Butters at the graveyard

City Hall roof blowing up

Mysterion talking to Chaos at a destroyed playground

some others i can't spoil teehee

And as you'll see, this represents like 5% of what happens lmao. Most of my ideas involving Kyle were super vague, and I had no fucking idea how to even involve Stan at first, even less Cartman (I actually wanted to keep Cartman away from the plot but he fought his way in anyway, as he does).

Brother, i didn't even have any scenes with Karen planned. I came up with that one spontaneously when I was struggling to figure out how to write chapter 7 (8 on ao3, when you count the prologue) and how to connect the dots between the U-Stor-It bit and what I wanted to do with Kenny figuring out the transport thing. You'll have found me like this trying to figure out all the connections and dots in Chaos' plan between Harris, the bar, Butters past (yet to be revealed) and how the motherfuckers of our main characters are actually gonna figure all that shit out.

I'm too embarrassed to say how many chapters were just kinda spontaneously rawdogged when they demanded actual detailed explanations of what happened, when I only had like the most vague idea thinking "yeah it happened somehow" (chapter 9 was most definitely one of them. That chapter description just said something like "Kenny and Kyle do detective work idk")

So yeah i guess the TLDR answer to this ask is kinda "idk man i fucked around and found out and the plot possessed me in vivid visions." I think at it's least ramble-y and most honest, that's what it all boils down to

THANKS FOR THE ASK <33333 AND KISSES IF YOU ACTUALLY READ ALL THIS LMAO

[curio-queries]

I saw Jungkook's documentary this weekend and have just a few thoughts. If you're avoiding spoilers, don't click the cut!

The Hybe Documentary Format

So...as a reminder to you all, I do not have professional expertise in the film industry. I'm just a very discerning consumer. I also haven't seen Hobi's documentary and I watched Road to D-Day while I was quite ill last year so I only vaguely remember some bits. (I'll definitely be getting back to those sooner rather than later though as research for a series of posts I'm developing.) That being said, I think we have enough data points to state that Hybe has absolutely no interest in filmmaking techniques outside of music videos.

I did mostly enjoy my experience seeing this film yesterday and I'm always grateful for any amount of footage the members are willing to share with us but this 'documentary ' was worse than Jimin's Production Diary. Any of you that managed to make it through my rambling review will know how dissatisfied I was with that.

I Am Still is not a documentary, it's a mixture of showcase footage and behind-the-scenes clips, most of which has already been divulged in the various episodes and shooting sketches on YouTube. Honestly, if you're not able to see the film, just go rewatch all of the bangtantv content for JKs solo period and the showcase and you'll be up to speed with 85% of what was in the documentary.

There are definitely some expansions to the storylines featured in the bangtantv content; mostly being anything that wasn't overtly optimistic. For example, we learn a little bit more about just how sick JK was during the Seven/3D promotions. That content likely was pulled from the bangtantv edit because it would have put a damper on the promotions and given certain 'fans' a focus to fixate their vitriol. But overall, it feels more like an extended version of existing content rather than a new work. At least JPD didn't continually feed us footage we'd seen before.

I'm someone who gets completely bothered by previews spoiling content so I didn't watch any of the promos until after I saw it and I am so glad I skipped them because most of the 'original' scenes of the film were featured in least one of them. Alas, that's a separate issue of which I'm definitely in the minority.

Was There No Structure?

Kinda. Like JPD, there is a semblance of a structure: Attempting to follow the chronology of release activities for JKs GOLDEN album through the lens of JKs staement trying to prove that he is still worthy of everything he was being hailed as during the BTS group activities but I don't feel this was successfully executed. It jumps round enough and isn't very successful in explaining the events if you didn't already know about them. The film starts with the SEVEN performance at GMA and footage that we've already seen of JK recording SEVEN, not mentioning anything about the music video or really how JK got involved with the song in the first place. The rest of the story beats have similar missing points.

They have a vague narrative with the 'I Am Still' points but that's mostly carried by subs and a couple of moments that JK mentions himself. I'm not saying it's not true or wasn't top-of-mind for JK during this process but it's not the main point of many of the moment/messages he shared with us during this time period so it feels a little disingenuous since everything else jn this film really only makes sense if you've already seen quite a lot of behind-the-scenes content.

Honestly, it makes me question the intended audience. Obviously, they know that ARMY will shell out whatever we need to when there's new content from our members but most of us will have already seen all of the bangtantv content so we are already familiar with the most of the footage in this film. I genuinely don't think this was produced in such a way to be palatable for audiences not familiar with BTS so who does that leave? Our friends and family that are peripherally aware of the content but haven't learned the basics of JKs album? ARMY with short term memories only?

But again, it seems this film was compiled by an editing team and not lead by a director with experience in crafting a documentary. The only new footage that Ican guarantee was captured with the express purpose of being included in this film was the few clips of JK talking in the practice room with the albums displayed by him. But we all know that's where all of the promo clips were gathered as well. I have issues with that approach as well but I'll leave this point alone for now unless anyone is interested.

Suffice it to say, all of these suppositions over the past year about how JKs documentary was getting special treatment or even questioning about investment in a project up front are dead. This was a product assembled with bits of what they already had completely in-house which was sold for distribution.

So, Did We Learn NOTHING?

No, there are a few Golden nuggets (see what I did there?). I can't recall everything having only seen it once (and having a rather disruptive audience - I swear there were only dozen or so ppl in my theater but I forget how obnoxious teenagers can be. I'm glad they're enjoying and supporting but we really didn't need light sticks flashing during a film and how many times does one person need to get up to answer their phone during this runtime? Three according to the row in front of mine.)

Anyway, something I thought was interesting to learn was that Standing Next To You was initially recorded the day after JK heard it for the first time. And hearing a little more about how JK yearned to perform that song definitelygot me thinking a little more about it. We can't reach any conclusions just with this little nugget but it does open the door to some theories. Like perhaps they were initially planning to have JK record two separate albums? SEVEN and 3D would be the singles of the first and JK would perform them as we saw but perhaps STNY was originally planned to be the single of the 2nd album that would release while he was in the military and thus be unable to perform it? Maybe JK loved STNY so much that everything was grouped into one album and Never Let Go was the only track held back for ms? Definitely some theorizing space to be had now.

Final thoughts?

Similar to my thoughts on the GCF: Budapest (which I feel would have had a much better reception if it had been labeled as a bangtan episode rather than a GCF), I AM Still should not have purported to be a documentary. It was much more similar to the annual Memories compilations. But the general public would not have shelled out the $25 to go to a theater to watch a Memories DVD so alas, we have our content packaged as a ~documentary~...

Did my view on the music change at all? Not because of the documentary. We're coming up on the year anniversary of GOLDEN and it's still definitely not my favorite. I completely understand why some people like it but it's just not to my taste. The overall impact falls a little flat for me. Too much breadth and not enough depth. I came into my musical soul during the 00s emo phase and will always be a sucker for music that absolutely drips in an emotional way rather than catchy songs vaguely referencing heartache and love. Again, just a matter of viewpoint.

I do think most of these songs stand much better being shuffled amongst other artists in a Playlist and several of them are significantly better when JK sang them live but I still won't be listening to them regularly. I wholeheartedly believe JK completed his task of proving himself as an extremely dedicated and versatile singer and performer. He's definitely got some solid points added to his resume after this project.

[akookminsupporter]

I know I've said this before, but you know what annoys me about the documentary? It doesn't provide new insights into the guys' careers. Yes, we get more of their opinions now, but it's not much different from what they've said in lives, concerts, posts, etc.

We've already discussed how disappointing it was that they didn't focus more on the early years of the band. However, I thought there would be a bit more about everything that happened during COVID. The fact that they not only had a huge tour planned but also planned to enlist after that. It's a shame they didn't address a bit more of their feelings and how they reacted to it all, especially since they kept working during those two years. Even though there are DVDs of those moments, like the online concert, they never really delved into what it meant to them as artists.

Something else that I think they should have included, and that would have been interesting to see, is how the agency planned everything. How they looked for a way to make many of the things that the group could do in 2020 and 2021, in particular, possible. Obviously, not everything in detail, but some of it.

Now the documentary is about to end, and I feel like I haven't learned anything new about them. Nothing we didn't already know, at least. The documentary looks like it was made by a fan who could only cut and paste clips, commentary, and parts of the original content together to make a video out of it all. HYBE and Disney+ missed a valuable opportunity to show something more… real. Raw.

The documentary also reminded me why I don't usually like interviews with the guys in magazines or publications. Not just because the interviewers ask superficial or repetitive questions, but because they are very guarded in what they say. Sometimes too much. That's why I really appreciated the interview Namjoon gave for a Spanish newspaper. Although I must admit that their interviews with Weverse Magazine are usually good as well.

The documentary is not bad, although my complaints might say otherwise; I just expected more, especially after reading the book. I really enjoyed hearing the guys' opinions on a lot of things, and that they themselves told us how they were feeling at X moment and so on. Something I also found interesting is how, especially in the last two episodes, they talked with a lot of uncertainty about their future as a group. I'd love to see them really talk about why they decided to renew their contracts as a group at the end, particularly. Because that uncertainty about their future as a group went on for a while, especially for some of the members. And that uncertainty ended, I think, in September? At least, that's when I noticed it.

Having said all that, in the last few days, I have particularly remembered that their culture is different, not only the culture of their country but also the culture of the industry they mainly belong to or grew up in. And that, although BTS, in many ways, disassociated themselves from it, at their core, they are still part of it. They and their agency/company. And I guess that's something that won't change.

[marimayscarlett]

Maybe in like late 2025 Richard will be bored enough to release new Emigrate?

I will miss the guys but we'll be watching the documentary frame by frame and that's gonna take a while + the live concert. 2 years will be gone in no time! And who knows, maybe Richard will come back as a silverfox?

Hi 👋

When it comes to Emigrate, I think it's less a matter of Richard being bored, and more about whether he needs an outlet for his creativity, wants to try something new musically, or is seeking balance. Emigrate as its own project seems to be very important to him in general and, if you read between the lines, it contributes to his inner equilibrium and sense of freedom:

"Emigrate, for me, stands for breaking out. For leaving my comfort zone." (x)

"It was like embarking on a new world, and I had to keep moving forward. It was definitely about leaving the comfort zone. That's why the name Emigrate. It all made sense. I believe the greatest motivation always comes from wanting to prove something to someone." (x)

"Emigrate is not just musical freedom, but also the freedom to do and be able to do whatever I want – whenever I want. [...] I need Emigrate for my personal balance." (x)

Given how much importance he attaches to Emigrate, i can imagine that it still holds a lot of meaning to him. In this ask, I've already discussed how likely it is that Richard will do something with Emigrate again. Long story short - we don't know, but it would certainly be nice. In this podcast (I know, I use it as a source of information ad nauseam, but Richard talks so freely about himself and his work in it 🤍), Richard says that he definitely has new material, since he is always working and writing music, though less than before.

Regarding the potential documentary and concert film: I think I still haven't quite realized it and am waiting a bit for the official announcement 🤲 It would be incredibly wonderful to get new film footage of the band! I remember how it was when Rammstein in Amerika came out; I went to the cinema alone at that time when it aired and was grinning with happiness the whole time 🥰 and later all the posts about it here on Tumblr... same with Rammstein in Paris. I'm sure that even if there might not be a tour next year and the year after, we will still be well entertained.

I'm glad the band is taking a break. Touring life is tough; they've given us fans so much and had to endure a lot and show nerves of steel over the past year. That all takes a toll on the substance, on the psyche, on physical condition. They've more than earned a break, and in the meantime, we wait here and celebrate them, their work and their perseverance 🤍

And silverfox Richard would be welcomed with open arms, definitely 👀😌

[chirpychipslive]

i desire a masterlist of rick wright lore. i absolutely love that man but i don't know half the silly, goofy things he got up to and i need a long-ass post explaining all you know about that little weirdo.

HI HELLO okay so as much as i see and understand a desire for a "rick wright lore masterlist", i don't think i would be able to do proper service by just listing all of the stuff i know off my head, plus i don't want people to see it and just take everything i say at face value and not look into things further if that makes any sense

so instead i will put a rick wright source masterlist under the readmore so people can go watch/read things for themselves in as much detail as they feel comfortable doing so, + i think a lot of people aren't aware of half of the sources i take from

Books

As far as books go your best starting points are Mark Blake's Comfortably Numb and Nick Mason's Inside Out, both of which are much more generalised sources for any Pink Floyd related material - I do have PDFs of both of these (i have physical bought copies too dw), so if you can't read/listen to either of them for any reason DM me and I'll send those PDFs to you :] They're both available widely on Amazon and other bookstores and Inside Out is also available as an audiobook!!

Guy Pratt's My Bass And Other Animals is 75% his own biography and 25% pink floyd related, so while it does have some Rick-related stuff in there, don't go into it expecting any in-detail explanations. Unfortunately I don't have a PDF of this book, but it is widely available and relatively inexpensive to buy (and I totally reccomend it!)

Franka Wright has supposedly been writing a tell-all on her marriage and experiences with him, but there haven't been many updates on it in a while. I've been relatively quiet on everything she's said about him in public as I don't think I have enough information on what happened to properly comment, but if that book does drop expect me to be the first in line to take a look

Websites/Online

Please god if you have even any passing interest use rickwright.com. It's a resource largely made by his estate and has a lot of information on there, it's a really sweet and interesting labour of love and I cannot reccomend it enough

pinkfloydz.com is an older website but has a gigantic catalogue of interviews, which include a large amount of transcribed interviews with Rick from 1996. It's just such a good resource in general and I highly reccomend checking it out, as even if you're not a Rick fan you still have a lot of interviews with the others in there

Here me out here; @mamazano (who has been inactive since 2021) has SO much on there that I don't feel bad putting them down as a source. Almost everything they post about is properly cited so you can find exactly where they came from, and they catalogue a lot of stuff that is locked behind more expensive/less available books. Their attention to detail for citing and sourcing quotes has been so admirable to me even if they're no longer on Tumblr anymore!

Watchlist

Here's links to watch Live At Pompeii, P.U.L.S.E, Delicate Sound of Thunder and Live 8 if you haven't done so already. also Chit Chat With Oysters has him for like 3 minutes

Remember That Night (an On An Island concert film)

Breaking Bread, Drinking Wine (On An Island tour documentary)

Rick talks about Syd for the 2001 Syd Barrett documentary by John Edginton

Broken China interview

Interview with Guy Pratt about PATGOD

There's definitely a lot more but this is the stuff I already had on my Youtube playlist of interviews - here's some that were on there but I haven't watched/listened to in a while so I can't 100% verify them rn (x) (x) (x)

Maybe one day I will try and chronologue all of the shit I know into something comprehensible but that definitely wouldn't just be a Tumblr post or smth lol

In the meantime I do thrive infodumping-wise off specific questions so if there's something more concrete you want me to (attempt to) explain I'm happy to do so! Thank you sm for the ask (I wouldn't have done this otherwise) and please feel free to contact me if you would like anything specific answered :]

[fictionyoubelieve]

This is a VERY long text post.

thanks @squareallworthy for giving me the excuse to make a House of Leaves post!! I'm going to try to make this accessible to everyone, so:

If you haven't read HoL, feel free to bail if this goes too deep or stops making sense. Personally, I don't think you need to worry about spoilers because it's not that kind of book (it usually spoils itself anyway), but if you'd rather go in knowing nothing, slam that J key now.

If you have read HoL, feel free to skip ahead to the theories. You're presumably good at tuning out extraneous information by now. :)

What is House of Leaves?

House of Leaves is a novel by Mark Z. Danielewski (MZD), published in 2000. It's an example of postmodern literature, which according to Wikipedia is:

a form of literature that is characterized by the use of metafiction, unreliable narration, self-reflexivity, intertextuality, and which often thematizes both historical and political issues.

...all of which is House of Leaves to a T. Rather than capturing a single narrative, the book's text layers multiple stories, which refer to both each other and to external (e.g. mythical) stories, and which often reference the fact that they are stories in a book.

You can find it archived here, though unfortunately that scan/OCR seems to mangle the text in ways that will be hard to distinguish from everything else it's got going on.

Overall, I think the book is really cool and interesting, but maybe not worth sinking a ton of time and effort into. It's not a fun or easy read. Definitely worth checking out, but don't be afraid to skim or abandon it if it's not your thing.

The layers of HoL

The innermost layer is The Navidson Record (TNR), which is ostensibly a documentary but effectively a found-footage horror film. It's a series of films about the Navidson family--an unmarried couple with two young children--moving into a house in Virginia, and discovering that something is very strange about it. First subtly and then dramatically, the interior of the house grows and changes, in defiance of physical laws. One closet in particular becomes an eerie and seemingly infinite labyrinth, which they explore at their peril. (Don't worry--the overall novel is creepy and sometimes upsetting, but not outright scary. I'm a weenie about horror and had no trouble.)

The next layer is a pseudo-academic text about TNR by a blind man named Zampanò. He recounts the events of TNR, but also meanders on long tangents about other stories or academic works.

The third layer is the primary one we experience as the book House of Leaves. A character calling himself Johnny Truant discovered the disorganized and incomplete manuscript in Zampanò's apartment after that man's death, and he has assembled and edited it into this book, as well as added an introduction and lengthy footnotes relating stories from his own life. Johnny often contradicts himself, freely admits to making things up or changing the previous layers to suit his whims, and appears to mentally deteriorate over the course of the novel. He also says he can't find any evidence that TNR actually exists.

There's a thin layer added by "the Editors," who supposedly received the text from Johnny, and published it while in contact with him. They add some appendices and minor notes throughout, mainly to provide English translations for certain excerpts or to state that something the text refers to is missing. They include a purported still frame from TNR in the appendices, with no comment from Johnny.

All of the above, of course, was actually written by MZD, the real-life author of HoL. He self-published the earliest version of HoL to the internet, before publishing the full version as a physical book. He also produced some teleplays related to the work, and a collection of letters from Johnny's mother. The letters were originally published separately, but now most of them are included as an appendix to HoL. MZD's sister, the singer-songwriter Poe, also released the album Haunted around the same time as HoL, and it serves as a companion or counterpart to the novel.

The final layer is us, the readers. We interact with the text and also with each other, like I'm doing with this post. MZD's website still hosts forum threads from the time the book came out, where readers deciphered and theorized about it together. This is an important and intentional aspect of the work, as I'll explain in more detail later (see "The Meta").

Sub-stories

There are a few smaller anecdotes within the text which almost serve as their own layers, but don't fit neatly into the hierarchy above:

The Chiclitz play The Minotaur, on p110-111

The story of The Atrocity, on p297-300

The story of the changeling/cyanotic child, on p518-521 and referenced obliquely on p48-49

Themes and motifs

A non-exhaustive and highly subjective list, ordered very roughly from the most to least prominent:

The Greek myth of the Minotaur and the labyrinth

House

Madness, memory, and meaning

The sea and the sky

Darkness, absence, emptiness

Yggdrasil, the world tree; trees, leaves, and paper; the Cumaean Sibyl

Fidelity (in multiple senses of the word)

Colors, especially red/blue or red/blue/green/yellow

Death and rebirth, procreation, the womb

The biblical myth of Abraham and his sons

The biblical myth of Jonah and the Whale

The eye, cameras

Head injuries, holes in the head

Families, especially parents and twins/pairs of siblings

Note that there are connections and overlap between these themes. I'm going to argue that the first few in particular are strongly intertwined.

The Meta

Most of the fan theories I've seen are focused on the usual concerns: "what do you think really happened in the story? what does this mean for the characters?" That's reasonable, but since HoL is extremely aware of itself and its readers, I think it's also worth asking what the text expects from us or what it's trying to communicate directly, if anything. IMO those questions are easier to answer than nailing down the events of the story, and that's on purpose.

While rightfully regarded as a challenging and puzzling book, HoL actually is pretty blatant about helping us "solve" most of it. Heck, it color-codes its major motifs. There were many instances where I was like "oh, this reminds me of that other part from a ways back" and then the footnote would tell me to refer back to that part I was remembering. When there's an encoded message, like the Morse code or first-letter sections, Johnny typically makes a comment providing the key to decoding it--and in some cases also tells us the "hidden message," like in his conversation with the band near the end of the book.

The book straight-up tells you how to read it. On p115, just before it starts getting really wild with the typesetting in a section structured like a maze, Zampanò's text gives this advice for navigating mazes:

In order to escape then, we have to remember we cannot ponder all paths but must decode only those necessary to get out. We must be quick and anything but exhaustive.

The next footnote (139) also warns: "[in a maze,] the faster you go, the worse you are entangled" and "If one reads too quickly or too slowly, one understands nothing."

And of course, the book provides an extensive (albeit somewhat playful) index, so that if you have a theory about a certain word or concept, you can easily go back and look up examples. I believe the page numbers also match up across editions, so that different readers can more easily confer with one another.

All of this strongly suggests that MZD very much wants us to view the text as a puzzle to decode with other readers. He makes sure we know there are patterns and hidden messages to be found.

The madness of analysis

Like I mentioned above, Johnny's mental state deteriorates over the course of the book. A lot of his story also has to do with his late mother, who was committed to a psychiatric institution when he was young, and who shows similar quirks and inconsistencies in her letters to Johnny. The reader is quickly clued in that Johnny is an unreliable narrator, and by the end of the book it's nearly impossible to untangle what "really happened" in Johnny's narrative because there are so many revisions and contradictions.

Zampanò's writing may seem like a sharp contrast to Johnny's, since it is stuffy and academic rather than casual and coarse. But the two strongly parallel each other, as do the two characters. They both ramble and are prone to lengthy tangents based on tenuous connections; Zampanò seems to make things up and messily add and redact just as Johnny does with his stories. Both seem haunted by and obsessed with the manuscript in similar ways.

Other HoL readers have called it a satire of academic texts, but I'd go a step farther and say it's drawing a parallel between (perhaps overzealous) academic analysis and psychosis: seeing patterns or connections where there are none, jumping to wildly different and sometimes bizarre conclusions from the same experience, getting lost in theories with little connection to reality, communicating in ways that are hard for others to understand.

It even encourages its readers to engage in the same behavior, by hinting at many different patterns and connections yet making them inconsistent, uncertain, and contradictory. It goads you into trying to analyze it, but you'll just end up like Charlie in the Pepe Silvia meme:

Derrida's Deconstruction

Wait, so does that mean it's futile to try to analyze House of Leaves? Well, sort of, and the book tells us this! Remember that part (see "The Meta") that was giving us advice on how to navigate a maze, i.e. the book? On that same page, p115, it also says:

Unfortunately, the anfractuosity of some labyrinths may actually prohibit a permanent solution. More confounding still, its complexity may exceed the imagination of even the designer. Therefore anyone lost within must recognize that no one, not even a god or an Other, comprehends the entire maze and so therefore can never offer a definitive answer. [In the Navidson house,] any way out remains singular and applicable only to those on that path at that particular time. All solutions then are necessarily personal.

This sounds a lot like Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism, which isn't a coincidence given that Derrida was just quoted on p112. From the Wikipedia page on Deconstruction:

Derrida's deconstruction strategy is also used by postmodernists to locate meaning in a text rather than discover meaning due to the position that it has multiple readings.

It's probably also relevant that most of the book is about Johnny interpreting a text after the literal death of the author.

Footnote 140, which comes after "even the designer" in the above excerpt, includes this, in red and crossed out:

Or in other words: shy from the sky. No answer lies there. It cannot care, especially for what it no longer knows. Treat that place as a thing unto itself, independent of all else, and confront it on those terms. You alone must find the way. No one else can help you. Every way is different. And if you do lose yourself at least take solace in the absolute certainty that you will perish.

This ties the more general advice on interpreting texts back to the specific narratives in HoL. Before we dig into that more in the next section, note that Derrida was also a fan of putting things "under erasure" by crossing them out. Hmm...

Madness and the Minotaur

In multiple ways, the Minotaur is associated with absence. Most obviously, text mentioning it by name usually only appears in red and crossed out--Johnny says these are sections he recovered after Zampanò tried to erase them. The Minotaur also seems to be absent within TNR; the labyrinth of the House suggests its presence through growls and slash marks, but a beast never actually appears, and instead, things within the labyrinth seem to gradually fade out of existence. In myth, of course, the Minotaur was removed from society by hiding it in the labyrinth, and was eventually slain by Theseus, obliterating it forever.

On p335 we get footnote 295, again in red and crossed out:

At the heart of the labyrinth waits the Mi[ ]taur and like the Minotaur of myth its name is [ ] Chiclitz treated the maze as trope for psychic concealment, its excavation resulting in (tragic[ ] reconciliation. But if in Chiclitz's eye the Minotaur was a son imprisoned by a father's shame, is there then to Navidson's eye an equivalent misprision of the [ ] in the depths of that place? And for that matter does there exist a chance to reconcile the not known with the desire for its antithesis?

(The footnote continues, making the shape of a sword with large gaps in the blade.) Empty brackets in this section supposedly denote burnt holes in the manuscript, but since they are consistently used to make puns, it's clear that at least one of the authors is being intentional. We could read the gaps here as literal: the name of the Minotaur is [nothing], the labyrinth conceals the treacherous [nothing] in its depths.

The chapter that footnote appears in (Chapter 13), which is titled The Minotaur, begins with a quote that is translated as so (p313):

a slow shadow spreads across the prairie, but still, the act of naming it, of guessing what is its nature and its circumstances creates a fiction, not a living creature, not one of those who wander on the earth.

In this poem, El otro tigre, Borges compares a tiger in a poem, made of words and symbols, to "the other tiger" of flesh and blood, out in the wild. No matter how he tries to capture it with writing, the real tiger will always elude him.

So the Minotaur is connected to absence, nothingness, emptiness, and so on. This chapter draws additional associations with death and madness, which of course are also forms of loss or absence--both of self, and of meaning.

Is Johnny the Minotaur?

Johnny is strongly associated with the Minotaur, but his exact relationship with it is more complex than simply "Johnny is the Minotaur" or "the Minotaur represents Johnny". He is stalked by the creature in various forms, and he has nightmares or delusions in which he is the Minotaur. Raymond, the abusive foster dad, calls Johnny "beast". I think it's most accurate to say he is scared of the Minotaur and scared of being or becoming it, especially if we're interpreting it as nothingness or madness. And we know how his story ends.

There's another association I make with Johnny which isn't as explicit and doesn't seem to have been discussed as much, and that is to Icarus. There are hints of this early on--his father is a pilot, he's strongly associated with the sea and drowning, his fantasy when he meets Thumper sounds like flying--but it's brought home in the story about getting the scars on his arms, on page 505, and all the allusions and imagery. He burns and then drowns.

Zampanò, likewise, is like Daedalus. He built the labyrinth that is the manuscript, and which traps both Johnny and himself. There are some suggestions in the text that he and Johnny are like figurative (or in some theories, literal) father and son. But Daedalus, unlike Perilaus, was able to free himself from his own invention, and it seems like this wasn't true for Zampanò.

(This may be too much of a pet theory; I'm not sure it's as well-supported as the other parts of this post. But there's something there, I'm pretty sure.)

House

A house is a structure that defines empty space and imbues it with meaning by separating it from the greater nothingness. The novel is likewise a structure that gives form to a particular nothingness (fiction) by defining it and separating it from the greater nothingness (everything else that has not happened).

As readers, we follow a narrative "thread" through the text, but encounter only the Minotaur (nothingness) within. Just as the Minotaur in Chiclitz's play was portrayed sympathetically, the absence does not need to be bad or monstrous--it's just nothing. As we see in the key shape of footnote 123 (p110-111), the Minotaur is the key, but there is no Minotaur. There is no key. The key is crossed out (both the text comprising it, and the key itself, by being split across two pages). Perhaps we "slay" this Minotaur by imposing our own meaning? Would that be noble or tragic?

The house itself is what matters, but the house is blue, and blue means open to interpretation--what a blue screen meant in the 90s, before digital film became the norm. Everyone projects their own thoughts and fears onto the house, and it reflects those back at them. It's meaning and memory; you get out of it exactly what you bring. Blue is shifting and unfathomable like the sea. You could lose yourself in its depths.

Though "out of the blue" specifically seems more like a deus ex machina, because I'm pretty sure the blue of the sky is associated with God, eyes/cameras/observers, and us (MZD and the readers), though I don't have examples prepared to back that up. "Shy from the sky" (see "Derrida's Deconstruction") could then be taken as "don't look to the author for answers".

But if there is any meaning to be found, it also can't be found looking only within the text and the world it defines, without considering those final layers. The stories all intertwine and even loop back on themselves, as when Navidson and Johnny both encounter their own book. Using the HoL to light your way through HoL will lead nowhere. You'll need help from the outside.

So?

Okay, okay, okay. So what?

"SO?" asks the text (p103), and maybe you do, too. Sew buttons, says the Morse code of footnote 119 on the same page. Dismissing the question? Or suggesting you work hard to secure your buttons with a whole spool of thread, as Johnny does near the end (p514) to avoid losing them to the labyrinth?

Shortly after, on p516, Johnny writes this:

Wasn’t darkness nothingness? Wasn’t that Navidson's discovery? Wasn’t it Zampanò's? Or have I misconstrued it all? Missed the obvious, something still undiscovered waiting there deep within me, outside of me, powerful and extremely patient, unafraid to remain, even though it is and always has been free.

This (and some of his other writing late in the story) reads to me like possibly an acknowledgement or dim awareness of reality outside the book, but I'm not sure. I'm just going to point to it, and also the part a little further down the page, where he describes a sunset as "Reds finally marrying blues."

How do we reconcile red and blue? Is it about reconciling ourselves to the lack of true meaning, as in Nihilism? Or choosing to focus only on the "real", refusing to lose ourselves in the endless cycle of interpretation?

I don't know. There's probably more that can be built on this foundation, but this is as far as I've gotten. If you actually got through all that, wow, thanks for reading, and by all means let me know your own thoughts.

[wherevenusholdssomeofficespace]

I just went through like... almost all of your posts. And loved all of them (mostly pnf and mml, haven't seen the other one yet).

But I came to ramble to you about a specific pnf character.

Stacy Hirano

Like. She's Candaces' best friend, down for anything, and doesn't get mad (much) when Candace goes to bust her brothers. Loves hanging out with Phineas and Ferb. She dated Coltrane, a band member, who barely appears again (I think, I remember him in like, 3 episodes (it has been awhile since I've watched it.))

She binged Sherlock books in a night with Candace. Tries to help bust Phineas and Ferb with and for Candace. Becomes president of... someplace.

Canonically knows Perry is a secret agent. Has helped Vanessa out in that one Halloween episode.

Just. Stacy.

I noticed you going through my stuff today and taking a break from my long day to look at someone appreciating my stuff certainly helped make my day!

And yes. Stacy is AMAZING. She's honestly such a wild character in her own right and its kind of hidden behind the fact that while she is Candace's best friend, she's not quite a major character in her own right the way Phineas and Ferb's friends are, and that honestly the kids side of things tends to be a bit under appreciated to begin with. So she mostly exists as an auxiliary character to Candace, but Candace being well, Candace, that leaves a lot of room.

On first glance Stacy seems like she's just Candace's cooler best friend. There to provide contrast on what a normal teenage girl is. Stacy's generally more fashionable, more chilled out. She's Candace's straight man. But like any of the characters she has her own moments.

We may not have seen any Candace levels of stuff from Stacy. But Stacy is pretty capable herself. Being a good skater and a Disco Miniature Golf Queen, being able to keep up with Candace on some level in some of her escapades, and handle the obstacle course. But also her just accidentally surviving the pharmacist apocalypse. She's also rather smart, somehow becomes President of Uruguay, puts together an elaborate home entertainment system. Though that said its kind of anyone's guess what she knows on a given subject, horrendously bad at geography, but has been shown to enjoy documentaries, reading Sherlock Holmes and knows when hieroglyphs were deciphered. She is at least able to keep calm in situations that others may freak out in, such as when she got bit by a spider and when Doof broke into her house she was relatively calm about the whole thing. Also relatively calm about the whole being on a ship in turbulent water fighting a shark thing.

Stacy has been Candace's friend since they were 5. As in they've been friends longer than Ferb and Lawrence have been in Candace's life. And they will continue to be friends into the future, truly a lifelong friendship. While we have seen Stacy get upset with Candace before, for prioritizing her brothers and her boyfriend, Stacy all things. Stacy does generally get the short end of the stick, such as in Run Candace Run. I think Stacy provides a sort of frame of reference for Candace's new relationships, with Jeremy and Vanessa in particular. They are people she thinks are cool and wants to impress. Stacy already knows she's a disaster, but is one that Stacy appreciates.

I LOVE her and Jeremy's relationships, what little we get of it. Jeremy is madly in love with Candace and Stacy is her long suffering friend. Both care for her a LOT but it manifests very differently between the two of them, but also very much the same. Jeremy finds a lot of Candace's flaws cute and endearing, Stacy calls her out. Jeremy encourages her in a sort of overly saccharine sort of way. Stacy hypes her up in a more "you're better than this" sort of way. But both sort of tease her with the same sort of fondness. The comfortableness they display with each other is nice. In Nerds of a Feather they call each other to ask about Candace. In the Curse of Candace where Jeremy teases her about taking Candace to a movie, both fully aware of how Candace sometimes dials things up to 11. I also adore the CATU scene with the two of the, where Stacy teases Jeremy about LARPing. Stacy is also the one who told Jeremy about Candace being Queen of Mars which also implies they talk outside of Candace which I love.

I don't think it's unfair to say that Candace isn't as good a friend to Stacy as vice versa, but I think this just has to do with the framing of the show, where Stacy doesn't have any huge wants. But when we DO see Stacy want something: for instance a trophy, Candace does so without hesitation even if she doesn't have the complete context. Also, Candace never holds it against Stacy for failing to do what she wants. I think it is also sort of sweet that by the end of the show that Stacy will just do her own thing if she can't get Candace to do what she wants, even in a normal friendship that's a sign of not being a priority.

With Stacy finding out about Perry's secret identity she really has found herself in a position to understand all sides of the mysterious force. We haven't really seen it come to fruition, but Stacy knows a lot. And I think this is great. Now, mind you, I am a firm believer that all of the teens are quite close to cracking the situation open, Candace I believe knows subconsciously, Vanessa just has to actually be invited over to the Flynn-Fletcher's once, and to a lesser extent Jeremy has taught guitar lessons to Doof and Monogram.

I've seen the idea of Stacy being like another older sister to the Flynn-Fletcher boys floating around and I buy it. Stacy is very often Candace's extra set of hands, attempting to bust Candace's brothers on her behalf. Stacy accompanied the Flynn-Fletcher's to England, and was Candace's Tree House Fight buddy. Stacy being an older sister herself also means Stacy GETS it, maybe she doesn't get Candace's exact situation. But she gets the "overly talented younger siblings who admire you for some reason even if all their attempts to get your approval really just makes you feel bad" thing.

Also besides knowing Perry's secret, the fact that she is Ginger's sister has allowed us to see more of Ginger outside of the Fireside Girls, which kind of puts her in a position of having a sort of connection to both the Fireside Girl plots, the Candace plots, and the Perry plots. No direct connection to the boys plots, but the fireside and Candace plots both intersect enough. She's kind of in a position to get to understand the whole mysterious force situation better than anyone else, aside from Perry, which I think might be interesting.

[petermorwood]

Sound FX oopsie or not?

I was watching a couple of episodes of "The Crown" last week, and picked up yet again on something I'd noticed - heard - before. Unless there's something going on that I don't know about, the sound the show used for phones is incorrect.

They (w)ring wrong. In fact they ring American.

UK / Irish bell-ringer phones, the ones I grew up with - and which you'd expect to hear in Buckingham Palace, Balmoral etc. - had a short double ring, like so: Brringg-Brringg ... Brringg-Brringg ... Brringg-Brringg.

US bell-ringer telephones had a single long-ish ring, like so: Brrriiinnng ... Brrriiinnng ... Brrriiinnng.

It probably sounds unimportant for those too young to have heard these phones unless they've installed a "old phone ring" in their mobile.

However for people who grew up with a particular ring (not that long ago, the phones in those pics brring'd on in homes and offices on both sides of the Pond well into the 1990s) the incorrect sound can be as odd as, for instance, seeing US or Irish / UK cars driving on the wrong side.

It takes a couple of seconds, and then "Oh, that's not right..." (or not left, as appropriate).

Despite more on-line searching than I should have wasted time on, I haven't found either "goof" or "reason why" to explain how those phones in "The Crown" rang the way they did, and it's an itch I'd love to scratch.

*****

Another sound error is depicting modern British emergency vehicles as having two-tone (dee-dah-dee-dah) horns. Not any more - even though an EV going somewhere in a hurry with lights and sounds on is AFAIK still "running blues and twos".

Nowadays "twos" have been replaced by wailer, yelper and oth-er kinds of electronic siren - none of which, IMO, are as efficient as the two-tone either for cutting through ambient noise or indicating which direction the sound and vehicle is coming from.

I've also got a memory of a documentary sometime in the past year about the Battle of Britain and the Blitz (i.e. 1940-41) where whoever dubbed in the sound-effects clearly assumed that a dee-dah tone has always been the British police-fire-ambulance warning.

Ahhh... No.

British emergency vehicles in the 1940s didn't use sirens, horns or klaxons; they were fitted with hand-operated or electric bells. At that period, the two-tone warning called a Martin-Horn...

...was AFAIK exclusively German...!

All this sounds picky-picky, but while using the wrong plane or ship or vehicle because no example of a real one exists any more is one thing, making a mistake in something as inexpensive and easily-reconstructed as a period sound is another matter.

Of course it's a well-known truism that while the contract for a movie / show's historical consultant says they must be paid, there's no matching contract clause that says they must be heeded, so for the sake of their scholarly reputations those consultants sometimes demand to be removed from the credits.

Looking at you, Ridley...

*****

ETA: Some days later, with that original post still queued, I may perhaps have found an answer. :->

I've just watched "Thirteen Days", that rather good, properly tense movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which Kevin Costner's character had two phones at home. The black one was domestic with a US single ring, the red one was Official...

With a UK-style double ring.

Without bothering to re-watch each relevant episode of "The Crown", I'm now thinking those "incorrect" phone-rings may all have been internal lines and - like the Official phone in "Thirteen Days" - had a different ringing pattern to denote they weren't a "civilian" call.

In addition, the Costner character and his wife both react to the double ring with alarm, indicating they know its significance.

All of the above makes sense when you consider that custom ringtones were half a century in the future, and there's only so much the electrical pulses driving a pair of metal bells can do...

[amateurvoltaire]

In one of your last posts you mentioned you were studying the civil war in Vandée. Have you ever seen the rather new movie "Vaincre ou Mourir" on the topic? If yes, what do you think of it? I was very curious to give it a try, hoping it's not the usual demonisation of the revolutionary government. Not that I expect it to be portrayed positively in a movie focused on the Vendéean insurgents pov, of course...

Thanks a lot for your question! It’s the first one I've ever received, and I’m really excited to dive into it. (I might have gone a bit overboard, so grab a coffee or a drink before you tackle this beast… TLDR at the bottom…)

I watched "Vaincre ou Mourir" a couple of months ago. Before I dive into my thoughts, the man himself would like a word:

All jokes aside, have you ever been to one of those medieval theme parks where they offer a "realistic" medieval show with dinner? As a kid, every summer, my parents took me to a jousting show at an Italian theme park. We'd watch two knights fight each other for an hour while being “medieval” and munching on chicken legs without any cutlery.

That's pretty much how I felt watching this movie: it’s flashy and fun but doesn’t have much going on underneath. It makes more sense when you discover that the film was funded by Puy du Feu, a large historical theme park in Vendée.

The context

And this is the thing: despite the Canal+ distribution, most of the production is local. The Vendée itself is often defined as a memory space (1), which can lead to a community feeling a special connection to their past. This is often reflected in local traditions, commemorations, and even political leanings. I remember watching an interview from the bicentenary where some locals said they don’t celebrate the 14th of July as a matter of principle—200 years later!

It’s also worth noting that the Vendée has a history of conservative and right-leaning political preferences, and Canal+ is also a right-leaning media outlet.

The Experts

Is it a documentary? Is it a fictional film? It's hard to say in the first few minutes.

The movie attempts to project historical accuracy by introducing four experts right at the start. If a film opens with such a direct appeal to authority, I tend to scrutinise who these experts are. So, who are they?

Reynald Secher: a historian who has been a massive proponent of the Vandean genocide theory. He is very anti-Republican, and his research methodologies are rather sketchy…

Nicolas Delahaye: I don’t know much about him, but I see he publishes primarily regionally in a Vendean publishing house. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s particularly biased, but it does mean his audience is very limited to people with specific views.

Anne Rolland-Boulestreau: a historian at the Université Catholique de l’Ouest specialising in the Vendée counter-revolution. Her articles in the Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française seem unbiased and well-researched. I own one of her books but haven't read it yet, so I can't speak to her longer-form content.

Armand Bernand: if you google de la Rochejaquelein, you will find this guy everywhere. He owns a publishing house, loves the Château de la Durbelière (2), and wrote a series of books set there. He clearly has a historical crush on M. Henri. I think he cosplayed him during some re-enactments and wrote a book about Henri’s brother Auguste.

It’s worth mentioning they either hail from Vendée or work exclusively within the region. This is my bias speaking because I’ve pretty much read all his work, but if you make a movie about the Vendee and can’t get Jean-Clément Martin to say something on camera about it, you should probably not feature any experts…

The Story

After an awkward three minutes of experts telling us how important the revolution was and introducing Charette, we get to the actual movie, which opens with a pile of bodies, burnings, a hanged person, and an awkward first-person voiceover of Charette saying that they made the Vendee into an inferno. This will be a theme for the next hour or so.

If I were to describe this film in two words, "tragedy porn" would fit. What occurred in Vendée was horrific, and its rightly violent portrayal should help viewers understand and appreciate the human and historical impact. However, the film often prioritises shock value over explaining the underlying reasons.

Charette is, by all accounts, a very compelling subject. The guy was a libertine with bucket-loads of courage and style who had a woman as an aide de camp in 1793! Despite spending 1.5 hours with him, narrated from his perspective, I would be hard-pressed to tell you what he’s actually fighting for. Is it honour? Is it revenge? Is it stubbornness? Your guess is as good as mine!

There is absolutely no character growth whatsoever. The film presents as a sequence of battles and shocking scenes narrated by a somewhat detached Charette. Remember what I said about the medieval show? This shock-value approach might work for a short performance during dinner but falls flat when stretched across an entire film.

Despite the weak script, the actors are quite good. Nothing Oscar-worthy, but they can act. The guy that plays Charette does a very good job and is quite charismatic.

The Historical Accuracy

On the whole, I can’t see glaring historical errors. It is fairly historically accurate with some minor issues. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but there are things I noticed and jotted down:

The main one is the bizarre theory that Charette agreed to the peace of 1795 because he was promised that Louis XVII would be handed to him. This has absolutely no credible historical basis whatsoever. It’s a myth that has been propagated for over 200 years.

I’m pretty sure Charette didn’t sign the treaty of La Jaunaye. In fact, as far as I remember, no one from the insurgent side signed it.

While not a historical inaccuracy per se, it's a missed opportunity that the film often portrays Charette as the sole leader of the Vendean army. Though he mentions being one chief among many, this aspect is quickly glossed over. His historical relationship with the Catholic and Royal Army and its leaders was complex and would have been interesting to explore further. It's a shame the film likely didn't have the budget to delve into this, as it could have also demonstrated that Vendée wasn't a monolith.

The depiction of the republican army as well-equipped is somewhat exaggerated. If they were as well-appointed as shown, Carnot and Prieur (Cote D’or) would be out of a job, and Saint-Just wouldn't have needed to requisition shoes for the army.

Lastly, the film underexplains the context of why the counter-revolution started. In my opinion, it manipulatively emphasises the king's execution more than warranted, suggesting it triggered the popular uprising when it really did not. The conflict in Vendée began as a peasant revolt, where the local population was far more concerned with religious issues than royal politics. Most Vendean peasants likely couldn't name the king—they probably knew he was a Louis since there had been a Louis on the throne for 200 years, but that's about it. Their concerns were local: when parish priests who had taken the civic oath replaced their traditional priests, and the Levée en masse was decreed, forcing them to fight random Germans 600 km away for a regime threatening their way of life, they rebelled.

Is the movie anti-Republican propaganda?

To wrap up, is the film anti-Republican? Frankly, I don’t believe it is overtly so. It adopts a somewhat clichéd stance: the revolution's ideals were noble, but things eventually went too far. While I have plenty of thoughts on this—which I'll keep to myself for now—I wouldn’t say this perspective is inherently anti-Republican.

Charette is depicted as initially supportive of the revolution, which is accurate for many aristocrats, especially the minor nobility. The portrayal of Republican soldiers is balanced, with General Jean-Pierre Travot sometimes appearing more honourable than Charette. As the main character, Charette is shown as lazy, indecisive, and sometimes brutal, so the film does not attempt to heroise him. The princes, especially Artois, are also depicted negatively. So, the film isn’t overtly royalist.

Is there a specific stance against the Government (aka the CSP)? I don’t recall them being mentioned, which, again, is accurate since most Vendeeans, including the nobility, were not deeply involved in Parisian politics.

That being said, Carrier and Turreau are portrayed very negatively, and rightfully so. Republican generals are also shown as less likely to spare the "brigands" when captured, which aligns with historical accounts. The movie leans heavily on shock value, featuring hard-to-watch scenes of executions, guillotines, and drownings. Unfortunately, even the staunchest republican historians would be hard-pressed to find the evidence to call those scenes revisionists.

Beyond that, the only thing that stood out to me about the Republicans is that they made Kleber look about 60 years old.

In conclusion, is this the most accurate film ever? Certainly not. Is it counter-revolutionary propaganda? I genuinely don’t think so, and if someone claims otherwise, they’re likely being disingenuous.

TLDR:

Watched the movie "Vaincre ou Mourir," which felt like a medieval theme park show—entertaining but lacking depth, probably due to its funding by an actual historical theme park. Despite its attempt to appear historically accurate with expert interviews, the film fails to deeply explore its characters or the complexities of the Vendée region's history. While it doesn't contain major historical inaccuracies, it oversimplifies the causes and events of the Vendée uprising, focusing more on visual shock than factual explanation. Not outright anti-Republican or counter-revolutionary, but doesn't offer new insights into anything. Overall, flashy but not as informative as it could be.

Notes

A memory space is defined as a location (physical or otherwise) where memories, histories, and narratives are preserved, shared, and understood within a society or culture. Things like museums, monuments, rituals, stories and in this case a region can be memory spaces

Château de la Durbelière was the home of La Rochejaquelein

PS: Thank you again for your question! I had a lot of fun answering it.