#i also feel like not enough people actually do research into the historical contexts of some characters

[jinxed-sinner]

Alright here's my full (possibly hot) take on redesigning Hazbin Hotel characters and making a video showcasing those redesigns while you criticize the official designs.

First and foremost, you are redesigning someone else's OCs. Hazbin Hotel is, in essence, a passion project for Viv. How she talks about it makes that incredibly clear to me. The only difference between Hazbin Hotel and, for example, the story I'm developing surrounding some of my D&D OCs is that Hazbin Hotel got picked up by a streaming service and is significantly more popular than most passsion projects get.

Personally if someone wanted to redesign my D&D OCs, I wouldn't mind it, in fact I'd probably think it was really cool that someone would want to redesign one of my OCs to be closer to their tastes in terms of what they like to draw. I would, however, be made incredibly uncomfortable if someone made a video redesigning them where they also pointed out everything they thought was wrong with the designs. I didn't design these specific D&D characters to be 1-to-1 accurate to their classes in D&D or to look professionally designed. I designed them how I wanted them to look for the story I'm telling because I don't plan to ever play them in a campaign. The main character Avlan is a paladin, and I can acknowledge that his design might not look exactly like a paladin. One of the tabaxi in the story (Ice) is a bard and the other (Spark) is a ranger, and I acknowledge that their classes might not come across well in their designs. The single tiefling I've designed for this story (Tragedy) is a cleric but might not come off as one in their design. But I specifically designed them to be easy for me to draw because I want to be able to tell this story through my art. Having someone say "oh, Avlan's armor isn't paladin enough!" or "Avlan's fur colors and patterns should be closer to a wild rabbit's because harengon shouldn't be based on domestic rabbit colors!" would fucking hurt (especially because I'm so attached to Avlan, but it would hurt just as much if similar comments were made about Ice, Spark, or Tragedy). I am so passionate about these characters and being told their designs are bad or wrong in some way would be like a stab in the heart, and it would still feel like a stab in the heart if this story ever got a massive fandom behind it. Giving Avlan more complex armor because you think it'd look cool or just want to see what it'd look like? Sure, if I could draw more complex armor I'd give him more complex armor too. Giving him more complex armor but also shitting on the armor I decide to draw him with? My motivation to draw him in his armor, potentially draw him period, would be dead for WEEKS.

Why is it suddenly okay just because someone's passion project was picked up by Amazon Prime? Why is it suddenly okay to be "fixing" someone's character designs just because the project has a much bigger budget than most artists get and is on a popular streaming service? It's not. I don't care if you're a professional character designer, or think a specific character would look better with certain traits, or just don't like the character designs.

Hazbin Hotel is still Vivienne Medrano's passion project, and redesigning her characters and making videos talking about everything you think is "wrong" with them is, honestly, disgusting. You can make videos explaining your choices in your redesigns without putting down the designs that already exist, whether you like them or not. Me thinking Lucifer looks better with his tail not restricted to his full demon form doesn't suddenly mean I don't like his official design, because I fucking love it. If you wouldn't do it to an artist whose passion project is just a webcomic here on Tumblr, don't fucking do it to an artist whose passion project got picked up for a cartoon by a big streaming service (or any company for that matter).

[cripplecharacters]

Hi! I’m writing a story about a lady with Down Syndrome. I was wondering if you knew where I can find any resources about Down Syndrome made by people who actually have it, or any organisations that would be good to follow. Any resources made by people with intellectual disability would be really helpful as well.

I read your post about this and it was really helpful so thank you, I’m going to use it as a starting point for my research.

If you’d like some context about the story she’s literally a lady in the 1920s who’s trying to get control of her family’s estate from her brother. Shes underestimated for her disabilities and for being a women but I’m trying to not focus so much on the discrimination and work more on giving her an interesting mystery to solve with the detective she hired. I’d like it to be a bit lighthearted. Anyway, as she’s a main character I really wanted to make sure I wrote her well. Thanks!

Hey!

There aren't many resources out there unfortunately, but there is a page on the UK Down Syndrome's Association's website where members with DS share their opinions on representation in TV and film. You can read it here. For info on intellectual disability in general the best I can do is link some of my previous posts on it - there's close to nothing that's actually made by us unfortunately, everything that I was able to find is always made by someone who knows a person with ID at best. To be clear, not all of it is bad - I thought this interview (TW for abuse that happens in the movie's plot) about a movie starring actors with DS was pretty good - but it's still a sign that we aren't getting enough #OwnVoices representation. It's slowly changing though.

To learn more about DS I would probably recommend NDSS, it's one of the very few orgs that have people with Down Syndrome as board and team members (should be the bare minimum, but it unfortunately isn't). There's also information on things like preferred language and myths that often show up around Down Syndrome.

I'm not great with history, but in the 1920s she would be a subject to a lot more than just discrimination. Eugenics and institutionalization would definitely be present. Not sure what route you'll take there, but basically all the words around that time that she would be described with are currently considered slurs or pejoratives. The racist term for a person with Down Syndrome was officially used into the 60s, and the ableist one is still used legally in 2024. But if you want to skip past that, I think that's more than fine. You don't always have to aim for 100% historical accuracy, just be aware of the real history.

A detective story sounds very exciting. If you decide to publish it on Tumblr or other online site feel free to send me an ask with a link, I'd love to read it.

Thank you for the ask,

mod Sasza

I’m just popping in as a history fan for a couple bits of history notes — but again, like Sasza said, you don’t have to be 100% historically accurate if you don’t want to and if you don’t feel it’s necessary.

So, especially in the first half of the 1900s, a large part of disabled children, including children with Down Syndrome, were institutionalized very early in their life. Around this time the push that immorality caused disability was strong, and people were often convinced by doctors and professionals that the children’s needs would always be too much for them. Eugenicism was sort of reaching a peak around this time, as well—I would say it was at its most intense in the period of 1900-1940s.

Not all parents institutionalized their children, though. There was pressure to do so, but that doesn’t mean everyone fell victim to it. There wasn’t really any official support for parents who did this, and there weren’t official organizations for Down Syndrome. From my research, the current large DS organizations seem to have popped up in the 60s.

The term ‘Down Syndrome’ wasn’t in popular use until the 70s, and it wasn’t known that it’s caused by an extra chromosome until 1959.

Life expectancy in 1900-1920 for people born with Down Syndrome was 9 years old. Some of this could absolutely have been due to conditions in institutions, but likely even more relevant is that about 50% of people with DS are born with heart defects (also known as congenital heart disease) that can be fatal if not treated with surgery. Heart surgery wasn’t really feasible until the late 30s and early 40s. Another risk factor is a higher risk for infection, which isn’t easy to manage in a world that doesn’t yet have antibiotics.

I actually wanted to find pictures of adults with Down Syndrome pre-1940ish, though, to see real tangible evidence of adults being part of a community. First I found just one picture of a baby in 1925 on this Minnesota government website. But then I found a collection someone made of photos of both children and young adults, but they are not specifically dated. The first baby picture is from the 30s according to the poster!

Judging by the clothes I see people wearing in these photos, photo #4 (man with Down Syndrome in a suit next to a woman) seems to be from the 20s and photo #13 (young woman with Down Syndrome and very long hair) seems to be from about the 1910s. #18 (large family with a lot of sons, including one boy with Down Syndrome) could be from the 30s. Those three are the oldest people with DS in the photos, and they seem like young adults. A lot of these pictures show a community and aren’t just isolated kids, which I find nice.

It’s hard to find specific historical record of people with Down Syndrome from that period of time, but I wanted to show photos of real people in their communities to show, hey look! They were there, too!

Either way, I love detective stories and historical fiction and I’m glad you’re writing a story and that you care about your character’s portrayal but I totally know the feeling of that tricky balance between historical accuracy and modern acknowledgement that we should have been doing better.

— Mod Sparrow

[ulfrsmal]

just finished Assassin's Apprentice and I have thoughts about the Fool & Fitz's friendship, not just it being developed off-page but in general. no spoilers for the rest of the series pls i'm starting Royal Assassin today tl;dr: the Fool and Fitz are consistently, canonically othered by the people in Buckkeep in different ways, yet similarly enough so that we can say "like recognises like". they are friends because nobody else understands what they go through day by day -- because nobody else is othered like they are. they can be intrepreted as joining forces to remain more or less sane, and/or less lonely, in an environment that does not, nor wants to, support them. also they may both be queer in different ways

basically, their friendship was forged quickly and offpage in a way that can feel like a copout, but which to me was not. it makes sense to me! both are alone and lonely and othered by the people in Buckkeep, albeit in different ways, plus what we have of their characterisation supports this too. Fitz canonically is alone and lonely, and he canonically considers friends those he spends some time with. eg Molly, who i can't argue was a true friend to him, but whom Fitz def saw as that. Fitz and the Fool live in the same place (give or take a tower a stable or three), they saw each other semi-regularly at best, and for Fitz this Creates Friendship. The Fool also makes fun of Fitz in the same way he makes fun of everyone. this is important because most people look down on, and make fun of, Fitz specifically because he's Fitz The Bastard. he's set apart from everybody else in Buckkeep in this way. but the Fool doesn't do that: he treats Fitz in the same way he treats everyone else. for someone like Fitz who's only had negative attention, this neutral attention must feel like praise outright. thus: Friendship on the other hand: the Fool. his physical description sets him apart from the dark-eyed, dark-haired, ruddy-from-being-outdoors, people of Buckkeep (Farseer line especially). his profession also sets him apart from every other non-royal, non-nobility person. (i've done no research but i've been told that historically irl court bufoons had physical disabilities, eg dwarfism. i accept corrections & info about this, i know i could very easily be wrong). Basically, nobody sees the Fool for what/who he is, they only see his profession in the same way that they only see Fitz as The Bastard. no nuance. the Fool, by virtue of having lived in Buckkeep for longer (and perhaps being older and/or more developed than Fitz), must have recognised this similarity between them fairly quickly. plus he dreams about Fitz. Thus: Friendship

there's another angle i didn't touch upon for lack of info but here it is too: queerness.

to me Fitz read like aroace (he didn't get Molly's implying/expecting him to ask her to marry him, for example, nor the "catamite" reference which could've been understood by context if not through the actual word). Besides, the Wit can be taken as a Gay Analogy/Allegory, which would only add to his (canon) queerness! the thing is: idk about the Fool. not yet. so I cannot say if this plays a part into their shared bond/friendship.

but the Fool already has a very Gender Thing going on canonically, there's an italics at the beginning of a chapter that's basically him telling people to mind their own fucking business when asked what gender he is, so like. Fitz and the Fool are arguably part of the same community, aka they're both queer, just in different ways perhaps. will need to read more about the Fool especially to expand on this X)

[disabled-dragoon]

Hello, would it be ok to use a walking stick/cane or is it not ok? I’d be a part time stick user and it would be used as 1/3 fashion accessory, like how people in 1800 England had sticks, 1/3 hiking stick/pole, and 1/3 part time aid for weight bearing.

for context on the aid part i have flatfoot and overpronation that causes pain in my heel and legs. I do have inserts that help enough and i do stretches and that helps too but I still have (sort of mild?) pain flare ups from time to time that can make me limp.

I’m asking because I don’t want to be ignorant towards ppl who use canes for a disability and I don’t want to come off that way… and I also think walking sticks are cool.

Hm.

This is a bit of a sticky subject.

There's some discourse about this that resurfaces every so often. Half of the argument is "using a cane for fashion/aesthetic purposes invalidates disabled people who actually need to use them" and the other half is "using a cane for fashion/aesthetic purposes might make them more mainstream and therefore accessible in the long run". I'm somewhere in the middle.

Canes are cool, I love mine dearly and I get incredibly excited when I see someone else out and about with one. It helps me feel better about using one, and that is something I have seen other people say as well. I also know that, historically, they have been and still kind of are popular accessories.

But, I have had people assume my cane and its predecessor were just accessories and I haven't been taken seriously because of it. A lot of people also treat them as disposable toys rather than an extension of their user, and I do worry that that attitude might only grow worse if they're seen as being "aesthetic" rather than a tool that many people physically cannot move without.

Also, using a cane when you might not need it, and without taking the proper time to research how to use one, can really damage your body in the long run. And while some canes are designed to be more weight-bearing than others, they're really more of a tool to be used for stability and relieving pressure on painful joints/muscles.

That being said, from a pain standpoint, if you believe it could help your flare ups, then a cane may certainly be something to look into. That is what they are designed for, after all. Just, again, make sure you look into how to use it properly, and maybe try and consult a doctor or a physiotherapist about it.

The fact you're taking the time to ask these questions instead of just plunging in shows me that you are being genuine when you say you don't want to come across as "ignorant", so thank you for being respectful, anon.

Have a good day/evening!

[amphibious-thing]

Do you have any advice for historical fiction authors who want to try harder to use historical queer language without confusing the average reader? It's something that has been a challenge for me and I've been finding your posts helpful, but I was wondering if you had specific tips on how an author could write better queer histfic for the modern reader.

It can be difficult because it is a balance. You probably don't want to just dump a whole heap of molly slang on your reader all at once. But you also don't want your characters to feel disconnected from the real history of the period.

In regards to molly slang you do have to remember that it was somewhat unique to the subculture. Only people involved in the subculture would be familiar with a lot of the slang. So if you wanted to include a character that uses molly slang you could aways have a character who is not part of the subculture, or new to it, who would serve as and stand in for the audience. This way the explanation of slang words can be weaved into the story in a more organic way.

Of course 18th century queer language is much more than just molly slang. It's good to know what the words mean but also what kind of people would be using them and in what context. For example legal writings will talk about sodomy and sodomites while a casual conversation might be more likely to talk about mollies.

While you don't want to overwhelm the reader you also don't want to underestimate them. If you pepper in historical terminology most readers will be able to pick up on the meaning form context. I think the Montague Sibling series actually does a pretty good job of this and it's a YA historical fantasy adventure novel. If Mackenzi Lee can trust her teenage target demo to pick up what a molly is from context then you can certainly trust an adult audience to.

It's also important to remember that it doesn't have to be perfect. Historical fiction is first and foremost fiction. The most important thing in my opinion is to create the feeling of a full fleshed out world. And for queer historical fiction that should be a world that includes queer people and thus have at least some queer language. You don't have to fill a novel with molly slang to do this, just give a bit here and there where it makes sense in context. The best advice I can give is to do the research and understand the history. If you understand it you will be better equipped to figure out when it makes sense to use historical language and when it makes sense not to. If you understand the rules you will better understand when to break them.

I think this is one of the reasons I like the Montague Sibling series so much. Mackenzi Lee has studied history and while her books are historical fantasy that strong base of historical knowledge really helps bring the world of the books to life. Also I just like that she actually used the word mollies in her YA book!

[Spoilers for the Montague Sibling series ahead]

Though it's not perfectly historically accurate the following scene form The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue feels very grounded in the period. The conversation is between the protagonist Monty and his little sister Felicity. Felicity largely represents the perspective of the popular rhetoric of the day.

"Honestly, Monty, I've never quite understood who's really got a hold on you." "Do you want to know if I'm a bugger?" She winces at the crass word, but then says, "It seems a fair question, considering I've seen your hands all over Richard Peele and Theodosia Fitzroy." "Oh, dear Theodosia, my girl." I collapse backward into the sofa cushions. "I remain inconsolable over losing her." I do not want to talk about this. Especially with my little sister. I came down here for the sole purpose of getting drunk enough to sleep and avoid venturing anywhere near this subject, but Felicity goes on staring at me like she's waiting for an answer. I take an uncivilized swipe at my mouth with my sleeve, which would have earned me a cuff from Father had we been at home. "Why does it matter who I run around with?" "Well, one is illegal. And a sin. And the other is also a sin, if you aren't married to her." "Are you going to give me the fornication without the intention of procreation is of the devil and a crime lecture? I believe could recite it from memory by now." "Monty—" "Perhaps I am trying to procreate with all these lads and I'm just very misinformed about the whole process. If only Eton hadn't thrown me out." "You're avoiding the question." "What was the question?" "Are you—" "Oh yes, am I a sodomite. Well, I've been with lads, so ... yes." She purses her lips, and I wish I hadn't been so forthright. "If you'd stop, Father might not be so rough on you, you know." "Oh my, thank you for that earth-shattering wisdom. Can't believe I didn't think of that myself." "I'm simply suggesting—" "Don't bother." "—he might ease up." "Well, I haven't much choice." "Really?" She crosses her arms. "You haven't a choice in who you bed?" "No, I mean I haven't much choice in who it is I want to bed." "Of course you do. Sodomy's a vice—same as drinking or gambling." "Not really. I mean, yes, I enjoy it. And I have certainly abstained form abstinence. But I'm also rather attracted to all the men I kiss. And the ladies as well." She laughs, like I've made a joke. I don't. "Sodomy has nothing to do with attraction. It's an act. A sin." "Not for me." "But humans are made to be attracted to the opposite sex. Not the same one. That's now nature operates." "Does that make me unnatural?" When she doesn't reply, I say, "Have you ever fancied anyone?" "No. But I believe I understand the basic principles of it." "I don't think you really can until it's happened to you."

The conversation then goes into Monty feelings for Percy which leads to this exchange:

"What are your expectations, exactly? If Percy did feel the same way about you, what would happen? You can't be together. Not like that—you could be killed for it if you were found out. They've been sentencing mollies by the score since the Clap Raid." "Doesn't matter, does it? Percy's good and natural and probably only fancies women and I am ... not."

While its perhaps a bit of an exaggeration to say that they've "been sentencing mollies by the score since the Clap Raid". It works the word mollies, a word most readers probably aren't familiar with, into the story in such a way that the context makes the meaning pretty clear. While Clap Raid might go over some readers heads they will still get the gist of the meaning behind the conversation and perhaps even inspired some readers to look it up and learn some real history.

This scene also takes advantage of words a modern reader would know like sin, vice and natural. They're talking about queerness in a more-or-less historically accurate way without using too many unfamiliar terms.

The Gentleman's Guide to Getting Lucy then gives us this fantastic scene that uses an 18th century euphemism:

He licks his lips, then nods. I reach for the buttons on his trousers, but he cries, "Wait! And I freeze, panicked I've done something else to muck this up, but then he says, "Just ... slowly, yes? Maybe not ... a full game of backgammon just yet." And then every inch of him goes red. "Percy Newton." I sit up over top of him and cross my arms. When he looks back at me with his eyes wide and innocent, I parrot, "A full game of backgammon? What erotic leaflet did you pick up that filthy vocabulary from?" "None!" he protests, but his mouth twitches. "Some." "Some?" Impossibly, he goes redder. "Some erotic leaflets." "May I have their titles? For purely academic purposes, I assure you."

Again the context allows for the readers to gather what is being talked about even if they've never heard the euphemism before.

And in The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy they even go to a molly house!

It is our only topic of conversation as the three of us walk to the pub in Shadwell called the Minced Nancy, which from the name alone brands itself a place where mollies like my brother and his beau can be together openly.

Tho I have to point out that while minced is 18th century language the earliest use of Nancy in this sense isn't until the 19th century.

[frogfishwastaken]

Fish are smart and social and have memories and feel pain and people calling them stupid and using that as an excuse to treat them less humanely than other animals makes me so sad :(

For context, a biologist named Culum Brown has been doing fish research for years and has found that they are simply deeply misunderstood because the way they’re adapted to their aquatic environment is different from how terrestrial animals are adapted to land environments. People just see fish doing thing and don’t understand that it’s useful for survival in the deep sea. They don’t bother to observe them enough because of preconceived biases constructed by society’s portrayal of fish and our experiences on land.

(This has connections to the Bible and the hierarchy of animals established in it as well. I don’t think we realize the extent to which Western culture and Christianity have consciously and unconsciously shaped science.)

Despite the widespread and deeply pervasive myth that fish are dumb they actually have been proven to have the ability to remember how to evade traps even years after first learning how to do it and they can observe and learn from other fish and they have cultural transmission and friendships with fish they recognize and I’m going to cry

There’s also very little concern for fish welfare, since they aren’t beloved flagship species like dolphins or whales or seals, and generally they’ve been so poorly understood that people basically think of them as having the same level of sentience as plants. That is NOT TRUE and the conditions fish are subjected to before they die are FUCKING AWFUL and nobody’s out here protesting against that when there have been so many efforts to reduce the suffering of farm animals. Nobody ever really labels a can of tuna “free range’ but they’ll label it “dolphin safe” bc we’ve always cared more about the species that are similar to us.

And! Hot take! Maybe we shouldn’t associate intelligence with value in the first place! That has historically had some pretty awful implications for how we treat other humans based on how they are perceived or presented by people in power!

All this definitely has some sociological ties and implications.

[hellsvestibule]

I miss academia only in the literary field tbh. Bc I always enjoyed reading and analysis but I kind of -need- to be prompted, I -need- other people to ask me things, bc otherwise I’m putting statements out there into the void unprompted vs whatever the spiritual successor is to your teacher handing you a sheet which says “what do you think this means” with the explicit understanding and willingness to offer you the grace your personal perspective on this author is going to be fucking limited, your intention to research them in their totality might be nonexistent. and this isn’t a moral defect, you just fucking want to read Something and talk about what you just read, 5 minutes ago. But you also aren’t seeking to be regarded as an expert, or someone who wants to read nonstop in perpetuity till you feel like you’ve learned Nothing, which is what I feel like a lot of people who read and discourse a lot about reading sometimes do.

Some people never stop they never pull back long enough to apply that knowledge to the present, which is why they exist in a sphere separate from normal people, who rightfully feel condescended to by this. Bc your basis and understanding of intelligence is “have you collected enough Information” to even be allowed to to perceive and form opinions on this isolated instance of what you’ve read. Instead it becomes a Sisyphyian task of further and further education which will lead you in circles and convince you that you can never know enough. Ergo you can never Be enough, to be worthy of stating your own opinions. Did you research the surrounding historical context? Have you read all of this authors works? Have you read the inspiring literature? Are you eager to provide in depth analysis and condemnation of this authors problematic opinions?

Wheras I want to sort of, beg to the importance and validity of sometimes having a limited perspective, and needing to clumsily navigate the learning process, rather than immediately being presumed one of 2 alternatives, an expert, or someone with no right to speak on a subject, period.

Can -you- the person who is more educated than me, summarize whatever makes this prolonged research and knowledge of the subject important, sustinctly, within reason, or are you presuming the need to engage with this thing in its entirety is necessarily meaningful to my capabilities as a human.

When engaging w someone less educated than you, on any subject, it’s your duty as the expert, within reason, Not to gatekeep people who are just passing through. I.e. when a non artist shows me a drawing, i do not critique them as someone who intends to spend 20+ years getting to the level of skill and understanding I am at, I speak to them as a person passively engaging with a hobby and praise them for their attempts, offering minimal advice if they are interested. Ask yourself. Are you actually keen on imparting this wisdom on others or are you just weaponizing it to make them feel stupid and morally deficient.

[bloodmaarked]

the first woman // jennifer nansubuga makumbi

first published: 2020 read: 14 june 2024 - 25 june 2024 pages: 437 format: paperback

genres: fiction; adult; literary fiction; african literature (uganda); historical fiction favourite character(s): nsuuta least favourite character(s): sio

rating: 🌕🌕🌗🌑🌑 thoughts: i think i must've read a different book than everyone else as the reception has been very positive but my experience with the first woman was mostly boring and disappointing. there are certainly parts that i did enjoy that make me glad that i didn't give up entirely and DNF, but man was it a struggle to get through to those points in the first place. i really had to encourage myself to keep going back to the book. i was bored with the story, the messages are quite in-your-face, and the characters were very difficult to invest in.

let's start with what i did like. i really liked the cultural background that's woven into the story, which takes place in 1970s Uganda. i do not know much about Ugandan history and i feel i had a beginner's insight into the impact of Idi Amin and the Uganda-Tanzania war, especially how it impacted citizens in rural areas. i like that it's encouraged me to do my own research into the history. it also covered a little of the conflicts between different Ugandan tribes, which, again, was new knowledge for me.

i also really enjoyed the relationship between nsuuta and alikisa. the book is split into five parts and the entirety of part four is dedicated to the exploration of their friendship as children through to young adulthood. i do not exaggerate when i say this part was easily better than all four other parts that followed our actual main character, kirabo (alikisa's granddaughter). i actually found myself emotionally invested in the two characters in a very short space of time. i thought the messages that jennifer wanted to convey were more understated than they were through the rest of the story. the cultural background again started coming through a bit stronger, which i enjoyed. the way their relationship develops outside of part four was also so interesting. i wish this book had just been a story about nsuuta's and alikisa's lives.

now for what i didn't care for... i was so. bored. i know it's literary fiction but this felt directionless and meandering and the plot was non-existent. i just wanted something to happen and nothing did. the "supernatural" stuff that takes place with kirabo in the first part was entirely pointless, and i feel like if jennifer makumbi had wanted to use it as a vehicle for introducing kirabo to feminism, there were other ways to do it. going into this, from the description and other people's reviews, i thought this would be somewhat similar to the girl with the louding voice, another coming of age story about a young girl in nigeria navigating a world that was not made to care about her. but no, kirabo's story was miles away from being as charming and captivating as adunni's.

when it comes to the characters, there were too many of them and they weren't compelling enough. i could not keep track of all the names being thrown around, and a lot of them are very similar. there is a small list of character names at the back of the book, but it doesn't even cover all the main characters and eventually i gave up trying to figure out who the person was when a name i didn't recognise came up.

despite the good writing of history and culture, i didn't feel that immersed in the setting and couldn't really picture Kampala or Nattetta in my mind. there were a lot of Lugandan words used, and there is no definition for these. i spent most of the time not looking them up as i could sort of figure out what they meant in context. i did look up one and it seems that it's a word that the author made up (from what i can gather) to use in place of the word "feminist/feminism". i don't know how accurate this or the other words used are to the language. a small glossary would have been nice to have though.

i think overall this book just wasn't for me. there were some moments of good humour and again, i liked learning more of Ugandan history, but while i'm glad i made it to the end i'm also very glad that that means i don't have to read it anymore.

[phatburd]

3, 18, 30

3. What work are you most proud of (regardless of kudos/hits)?

Counting Up, Counting Down. 😊. I was able to throw in so many ideas I’d been sitting on for years into this, and somehow still managed to make it all work. My first ship fic, also my first fic that contains any amount of smut.

18. The character that gave you the most trouble writing this year?

NGL. It’s Napoleon Bonaparte. And he’s not even a POV character.

You think it would be easy, since there’s so many documented accounts about him and his behavior to draw on. That actually kind of makes it worse. Instead, it makes me feel like, “How the fuck do I even write that?”

I axed an entire chapter out of Once Was All There Was with him in it, because it was getting out of hand and overbuilt. He was being a power-tripping grade A asshole (which is not out of character), but I thought it was going on too long to come around to the point. I may still salvage it. I don’t want to do a Ridley Scott on him, accidentally or not. Naps has suffered enough indignity already.

30. Biggest surprise while writing this year?

That I’m doing RPF. Granted, it’s historical RPF and everyone is dead, but there’s a weird, vocal contingent of fandom that believes any kind of RPF is bad-wrong-perverted regardless if the subjects are alive or have been dead for thousands of years. I remember seeing someone on Reddit proclaiming they never watched biopics or watched/read historical fiction because it was bad-wrong-perverted in their POV to use real people in any fictional context at any time.

Like, WTF. I hope you like that view from your high horse, bub. And I hope they were just joking because, dude, how do they live? 🤯

With some exceptions (like Naps up in the previous question), I’m finding that writing RPF really isn’t that much different than straight up fiction. I also like that extra layer of historical research for authenticity.

Thanks for asking! 😘

[yllcm]

Someday, as a non-Romani white person, I would love to write a Romani character but do it right. 

It just feels like all my reading and sources are mainly coming from articles written by WHITE (oftentimes English) historians sociologists.

Below the cut is some thought vomit regarding this and what not...feel free to comment below/reblog with your thoughts+comments+concerns+feedback because I would love to hear other people’s onions particularly from tumblr’s Romani community. 

If you guys know of any good Romani-sourced articles, books, documentaries, journals or WHATEVER please let me know because it just feels like I keep getting the white narrative. Particularly, I’m mostly interested in their historic religious practices, folklore, and any truth to the idea that their ancestral religious practices are in any way related to the concept of “mysticism”. 

For context, I wanna write a book about magic and urban fantasy stuff and my story revolves around a group of witches (or magic practitioners), humans, and other supernatural entities from different cultures coming together to defeat “a big bad”. They all make up a council sort of like a United Nations of witches/magical beings kind of a thing. 

I know there are portrayals of characters who are Romani (such as Marvel's Scarlet Witch although that's probably a terrible example all things considered) but are also magic and have magical powers but, I also believe that writing a witch OC or these kinds of characters that practice "magic" as we see it in movies and TV (or in my case an ubran fantasy book) as Romani are just going to be considered derogatory and only feed into those harmful stereotypes.

I'm currently trying to learn more about Romani culture here and there by doing my own research where I can (which entails a LOT of reading, naturally) but MAINLY pertaining to what their religious practices entail, their folklore, how that feeds into the culture of what it means to be Romani, and how the stereotypes became down to the historical and factual context and so on.

Ironically enough, some sources say that many of the claims of mysticism regarding Romani individuals actually come from false narratives often perpetuated by non-Romani people. 

Today, a lot of Romani people, seeing as how many of their ancestors were initially from India, actually follow the Hindu, Muslim, and even Christian religions. Specifically, Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholic, or Muslim (also feel free to correct me if I’m way off base with this or any of this info). 

[skruffie]

actually fucking furious at an otherwise incredible genealogist right now who has done a lifetime's amount of work and research for Métis. She's pulled up the 1950 census that lists Buffy Sainte-Marie as Beverly J. Santamaria and is like "how sad this italian woman became a famous cultural icon"

You want to play that game? Let's fucking play the game.

1900 Census straight from Ft. Fucking Shaw Indian Residential School. Angela Nedow (Nedeau). Indian child aged 6. Names are misspelled all the time.

The same ancestor ten years later. Name misrepresented now as Angelina. Race listed as white.

Residential school did such a great job at assimilation it changed her entire race, right?

Ralph Huntley, mixed Yurok and Scottish. This photo was taken in direct sunlight next to his white wife Henrietta and you can observe with your eyes how much darker he was even while mixed. His father was brown enough to lie and say he was Mexican because it was safer for him to be seen as Mexican than as a Yurok man. Due to the terror and racism of being seen as Yurok I am honestly not sure if his father ever actually talked to him about how they were not Mexican and in fact from Northern California, but regardless Ralph is listed as white on census reports and on his draft card. White with a "ruddy" skin tone.

The shit that I've seen on census reports has been frustrating to no end. While casually trawling some of the earlier ones in Humboldt county page by page, you know what I saw when I got to the pages that were the communities largely comprised of Chinese immigrants?

Not a single name, sex, or age was listed accurately. The census taker instead wrote down a term I'm not going to repeat here and then just essentially went " " down the whole page. Is it much of a stretch to imagine the census takers being a little dishonest now and then? Is it a stretch to imagine a child adopted out of her community into a while family in Massachusetts, knowing nothing, would be listed as white when she has no other information available to her?

None of us know what is going to come out in this CBC report but at the end of the day the Piapot Cree still claim Buffy and this is only going to cause further harm.

"but if she wasn't actually born on the Piapot reserve--" I don't care. I do. Not. Care. She is a member now. She has family there. I still grapple with feeling like I don't have a dog in this race because of my own disconnection story but I don't really care about that at this point either. Gail Morin should know better.

Whatever comes out in this program is going to be a hot topic conversation for a while but it's only going to serve at silencing other people who are struggling to repair their broken connections. Tribal nations are going to be even more wary about people who have legitimate claims. Everything is already broken so why the fuck are we breaking it even more?

EDIT: I've seen the broadcast. Not at all surprised that Keeler and Tallbear were in it, and I'm also really annoyed that Talliet specifies online she's a niece of Riel but the stupid fucking broadcasters says she's a descendant. Louis Riel has no direct descendants. You put in all this time and effort into poking through someone else's history and trauma and don't even catch that in the final edit before you start the show? My original point here still stands because it is exactly people like Keeler that pull these tactics without digging into the historical context of why our ancestors would have been identified the way they are in reports.

[butchladymaria]

Hi, sorry if this is too personal or anything—but when did you first realize you were trans? And how did you gain the courage to tell others about it? I am needing to hear others’ stories because it’s scary out here if I’m honest.

no worries, i don’t mind answering! it got a little long, so it's going under the cut. this is a complicated question to answer, but it was fascinating to reflect like this! the world may hate our guts right now, but i am proud to be trans. stay safe out there, anon.

it’s a complicated subject for me honestly. in some ways, i recall always feeling this weird disconnect from the idea of “womanhood”, especially starting in my teen years. i would look at my reflection in the mirror and not recognize myself. i felt like i was wearing someone else’s skin. my family was liberal, but not liberal enough that i was allowed to present outside of femininity. i discovered i was a lesbian, and it explained a lot: so much of womanhood is defined in relation to men with the expectation of heterosexuality - but it didn't explain all of it. i was forced into womanhood by transphobes and alienated from it by lesbophobes.

as i got older, my friends began coming out as different varieties of trans, and it spurred me to do research for myself. the experiences of trans folks were incredibly useful to learn about for a whole host of reasons. in that community, i saw a group of people who were deliberately seeking the parts of my body and assigned gender that i'd always hated, and in seeing their gender euphoria i realized that it didn't have to be this way. femininity didn't inherently have to be a cage. the trans community was living proof to me that i was allowed to leave, and to discover my own identity the same way they did.

i did a sustained investigation for my high school art class in senior year to try and find an answer to what womanhood actually meant. my answer was that womanhood is something constructed from both external factors like cultural and historical context, but also internal factors. i came to the conclusion that in the end, each woman defines womanhood for themselves. i realized that the only connection i felt to it was all the pain it caused me.

gender isn't some immutable prison constructed from hormones and genes. it was made the fuck up. at a certain point, i think i had to really ask myself why, given that's true, i felt so beholden to a gender identity and presentation that made me so miserable all the time.

before i close, i wanted to link this video! i had to go digging for it, but i remember it giving me one hell of an epiphany when i first watched it. i don't know if you're cis, trans, or caught somewhere in the middle - but regardless, i hope someone reading might find it useful.

so here we are. nowadays, i feel most at home with terms like agender, nonbinary, and butch. my identity as a lesbian and my identity as a trans person are inextricably linked. i think i still have a long way to go on my journey, but i am so glad that i started it. i am proud to be trans, and i am proud to be a part of the trans community 🏳️‍⚧️💕

[mockingbirdshymn]

Tag Game: This or That Writer's Edition

tagged by @pens-swords-stuff and so. IT IS TIME!!!!

Btw for those I tag, you don’t have to do this or whatever it’s just a silly fun thing I’m doing

- Historical or Futuristic?

Futuristic, if only for the sake of not having to research every single goddamn thing about the 1800s or whatever. Reading wise, though, it’s definitely Historical.

- The opening or closing chapter?

Closing chapter omfg. Like. ITS SO SATISFYING TO WRITE. It’s a cherry on top. It’s what hits the hardest. Opening chapters are amazing to write, but ending chapters? Hit me write in the feels to both read and write. It’s the end of an adventure for both the author and reader.

- Light&Fluffy or Dark&Gritty?

If I’m reading, I adore light and fluffy. Writing wise, and assuming that’s what this context is because it’s from a writeblr account, DARK FOR THE WIN. Angst is so fun to write like. Oh my god. It’s so fun idk how to say it I just love writing it.

- Animal companion or found family?

Kicks my dadvid and momgwen aus under the fridge. Yeah I’d say I like found family. It’s genuinely the best. Finding familial comfort in other people and getting a family when before you didn’t have one. It’s just. I love.

- Horror or romance?

Writing wise it has to be horror. It’s easier lmao. But it also depends on the fandom. For Camp Camp its definitely romance, but overall I like writing horror. I barely write it tho

- Hard or soft magic system?

Idk what this means but I’m assuming it means complex and not complex and I have to say complex. Making those complicated rules is like a little adventure for me. I love worldbuilding sm it’s insane

- Standalone or series?

I don’t rlly write series when it comes to fics. I’ll write sequels and spin-offs but never with the intention for a linear storyline to be spread between fics. For actual books I love writing series, tho I haven’t published anything yet, so I’m going with this for fics

- One project at a time or always juggling 2+ projects?

My current list of projects -

1- Longest oneshot ever, name pending

2- Space Kid Dadvid Momgwen AU ft Max

3- Showtime which I hate now I literally despise the first chapter

4- That one SK and Dolph friendship fic

5- Gwenvid oneshot where the campers play matchmaker and plot twist it works

6- Road trip fic hell yeah

The only real active one is the name pending oneshot, because I love working on it, but every now and then I’ll write a bit for the others.

- One award winner or one bestseller?

Haha I’m actually working on a book right now, and if I end up getting it publish I’d adore it being a bestseller. One, because I adore the idea of that many people reading something I made. Two, because when picking out books to read, bestseller catches my eye more than awards, oddly enough. I mostly write fics tho. Translating this into hits vs kudos, probably hits? But comments are better than everything ever actually. Ily people who do that

- Fantasy or Sci-Fi?

Inhales and exhales. I FUCKING LOVE FANTASY. Oh my god it’s amazing. I wrote a fae fic once for another fandom that was never published. I really liked that one. Fantasy can be so awesome in so many AUs. I like sci-fi but fantasy wins for this one.

- Character or setting description?

I like both lol. I scarcely do really detailed descriptions, but I like both of them equally. Setting is a bit easier and more common in my writing, I think, so I’ll go with that.

- First or final draft?

FINAL DRAFTS ARE SO SATISFYING OMG. To read your fic and fix all the last mistakes, then at least get to publish it? Its so satisfying. Like. It all finally being done. It’s incredible, especially when the fic is one you’ve worked on for a while.

- Love triangle or no romantic plots?

Does a poly relationship count as a love triangle? If so, yes. But I also enjoy writing some good ol’ gen fics. Love triangles where it ends in like choosing one or the other always irks me, idk why

- Constant sandstorm or rainstorm?

Is this a metaphor. My autistic ass could never. But I like the rain and writing the rain soooo ummmmm id say that? Tell me if i missed the actual meaning and I’ll edit it ahdkdjdhe

Uhh ppl I’ll tag to continue this or whatever idk I’ve never done this before lmao: @oreayourlocalannoyingidiot @fruit-kick @personification-of-sloth IDK IF THE LAST TWO OF U WRITE STUFF! SKIP THIS IF YOU DONT

[uncle-fruity]

Decided to read the article. I absolutely believe that what the author calls "male flight" has some validity to it, but it doesn't seem to be a reason men have given themselves, and it seems reductive to put the decline of men pursuing education solely on misogyny. Not to say that misogyny isn't a factor, because I agree that the article's thesis lines up with historical trends of devaluing anything seen as "feminine" work, and I know enough sexist men to know that many do have an aversion to being in anything they consider women's spaces. I'm not sure that I fully agree that the main reason men aren't pursuing education is the kind of direct misogyny described in the article, but I also don't have any evidence to the contrary lined up, and it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

Early in the article, the author lists out other reasons that have been cited to partially explain the decline in men's enrollment:

[Image Transcript: Other reasons I came across while researching for this article include:

-- Men can make more money without a college degree than women can, so women need college more.

-- Higher rates of alcohol, drug use, gangs and prison for boys negate college as a viable option.

-- Colleges are usually left-leaning, so right-leaning students increasingly don't feel comfortable there. And more men than women lean right.

-- Men join the military more than women.

-- A man will sometimes have to provide for wife/kids before he can finish college. /End transcript.]

Unfortunately, the author did not give citations for any of those claims, nor did she spend much time explaining why she thought these reasons weren't major factors -- or not as notable as the reason she gives: the rise of women in higher education. It would have been nice to see where that information was coming from. Particularly the point about higher drug and prison rates would be nice to have some context for. To be fair, there is a section just before the part that I cited that does give some sources for some of the other reasons people have attributed to the decline of male enrollment.

And, actually, to be extra fair, I'm gonna post that part as well, because it might be helpful. So this is the part directly before the passage I just cited:

[Image transcript: The Pew Research Center has found that boys are more likely to think they don’t need a degree for the jobs they want, and when they do enroll in college, work opportunities lure them away.

Ruth Simmons, president of A&M University thinks “the problem is the way we treat our boys in k-12. They turn away from school because of the negative messages they get at school… Behavior that is rewarded for boys doesn’t fit well with good student behavior.”

Another college president, Donald Ruff believes it boils down to money. “Honestly I think it’s the sticker shock. To see $100,000 that’s daunting.” /End transcript.]

I have little to add about this passage, I just thought it would be helpful to include.

The author also does not seem to consider race in her argument beyond drawing parallels between white flight and male flight. As far as I could tell, this article gives few statistics about the races involved. Is the influx of women predominantly white or predominantly non-white? When we talk about men not enrolling, is there any racial element being considered -- are non-white men enrolling at higher or lower rates than they used to? Are we talking primarily white men not enrolling, or is this male flight evenly distributed across racial demographics? How do these demographics play out? Because, to me, it seems like misogyny and racism could both be at play here. If more black women than ever are going to college, it is likely that male flight is in tandem with white flight, but to actually make that claim with any amount of credibility, we would need more information, which the article does not provide/is not focused on.

To be clear, I do not have the answers to those questions. I am merely speculating. This is one of those cases where I'd need to spend more time looking at other sources to get a broader view of the issue, including the sources the author included, the ones she used to support her claims, and the Freakonomics episode she mentions.

On that note, there's this interesting passage, which comes off as sorta... idk... I don't have the exact words for it. Undermining her own point a little? I'll analyze this feeling I have more after the image transcript. (Also, the "they" that is mentioned at the beginning of this passage is referring to the Freakonomics podcast.)

[Image transcript: They mentioned that there is one subset of men who out-enroll women. Which subset might that be?

Gay men.

While only 36 percent of US adults have bachelor’s degrees, 52% of gay men do.

"If America's gay men formed their own country, it would be the world's most highly educated by far.” - Joel Mittleman

At the Joel Mittleman quote in the podcast, I leaned forward…yes… surely now we will wonder why only straight men aren’t attending college… yes? /End transcript]

I feel like this passage gives a passing glance at intersectionality and then just hand waves it away to prove something about straight men. It just strikes me as something that should be explored more if the argument you're making is that men are leaving for misogynistic reasons. Because we should all know by now that gay men are perfectly capable of being misogynistic and that there are definitely gay men who don't want to share spaces with women. Is it that gay men overall tend to be more in touch with or comfortable with femininity, and are therefore less deterred by the presence of women in the classroom? I guess I'm honestly just confused as to how gay men factor into this conversation and why this deviance from the overall trend is not explored. It seems extremely relevant to the conversation?

Also, the article up to this point has been saying that men -- as a general category -- are choosing not to go to college. Is it true that the article is talking about straight men only, as this portion seems to imply? Are we considering gay men as somehow not men or unaffiliated with the rates that men are choosing college? Does the presence of more gay men in academia also mean that this "male flight" is also in part due to homophobia, or is homophobia not being considered as a factor the same way race doesn't seem to have been factored in?

Finally, how do trans men factor into this conversation? Were they counted as women or men? Were they considered at all? If they were, that certainly is not represented here.

So, I guess my overall impression is that this is an interesting and compelling thesis, but the specifics are missing in a way that makes the author's argument fall flat. I think this article would really benefit from a more intersectional approach. I also believe, as with all social issues like this, that the problem is never just one thing, but a combination of things, all of which need to be considered to address the underlying systemic issues that get us to this point. I absolutely believe the author is on to a big part of the problem, but I think her scope is limited and she needs a more solid foundation of information to build her argument on.

Idk. Read the article for yourself and see how it hits.

Why aren't we talking about the real reason male college enrollment is dropping? (Celeste Davis, Oct 6 2024)

"White flight is a term that describes how white people move out of neighborhoods when more people of color move in.

White flight is especially common when minority populations become the majority. That neighborhood then declines in value.

Male flight describes a similar phenomenon when large numbers of females enter a profession, group, hobby or industry—the men leave. That industry is then devalued.

Take veterinary school for example:

In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.

By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.

By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%

A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.

But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”

Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.

For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied.

One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition! (…)

Since males had dominated these professions for centuries, you would think they would leave slowly, hesitantly or maybe linger at 40%, 35%, 30%, but that’s not what happens.

Once the tipping point reaches majority female- the men flee. And boy do they flee!

It’s a slippery slope. When the number of women hits 60% the men who are there make a swift exit and other men stop joining.

Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:

“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”

Now we’ve reached that 60% point of no return for colleges.

As we’ve seen with teachers, nurses and interior design, once an institution is majority female, the public perception of its value plummets.

Scanning through Reddit and Quora threads, many men seem to be in agreement - college is stupid and unnecessary.

A waste of time and money. You’re much better off going into the trades, a tech boot camp or becoming an entrepreneur. No need for college. (…)

When mostly men went to college? Prestigious. Aspirational. Important.

Now that mostly women go to college? Unnecessary. De-valued. A bad choice. (…)

School is now feminine. College is feminine. And rule #1 if you want to safely navigate this world as a man? Avoid the feminine.

But we don’t seem to want to talk about that."

[sajiabude]

Journal Entry #1 - Convo w Mimi

Journal Entry #1 - Convo w Mimi

(In response to Mimi's essay "Against Bourgeois Art")

Mimi! Thanks for this. Finally got a chance to sit w it this morning. So manny things come up for me. The way bell talks about architecture and arts political functions in art on my mind, the way Angela talks about the vitality of imagination in revolution, the way Sandi Hilal (of DAAR) speaks of the importance of a love based practice. Its so funny i always forget u studied art history- for some reason i always think it was English. I’ve been thinking about Philip Guston alot from that era, really interesting career arc of making realisic oil paintings inline with class struggle realism - who then switched to more abstract renderings and ended his carrer at this really interesting inbetween. Funny enough he’s had this resurgence of controversy lately dude to abstract renderings he was making of kkk hoods/members in one era of his practice. Honestly, I came to his work from an intrest in more ‘painterly’ aspects- material, movement, gestures in the work - but I’ve since come to sit with it in other contexts as well. Been thinking and reading a lot about the things happening after abstract expressionist movement (eccentric abstraction, post minimalism, conceptualism etc) in the states, but more beyond too. There were things happening at that time that often isn’t highlighted usually because it was made by a woman and/or person of color ofc that are getting some more eyes now but were historically excluded from that conversation. Eva Hesse, Senga Ngudi, David Hammons, Ana Mendita, Beverly Buchanan, etc. and now coming to contemporary artist I feel like are continuing the tradition of what I’d like to think of as ‘hidden radicality’. Cameron Rowland, El Natsui, Park McArthur, Felix Gonzales Torres, Doris Salcedo, Martin Puryear to name a few. Something I’ve really been attracted to in peoples practices and output is this aspect of a trickster nature. Where there’s all this theory and research behind and underneath the work but then on the surface level, there’s this object that is birthed into physical form through that. Because I think there’s still is a finesse and a level of magic, alchemy - jen es se quoi (lol) that makes art making (to me) go beyond just being renderings of what’s happening or what can happen. It makes me think of this meme where its the bullying one and like figurative paintings are making fun of process/research based abstraction lmfao. I kinda hate figurative paintings for that reason😬. Like i appreciate their place in history and the foundation it’s laid for later movements but at least in the context of making art right now, in all mediums there’s something about being too on the nose that I think about alot. Like how can I trick, inspire, ignite or otherwise ‘convince’ people to look in a certain direction (all together in the same direction of love and not at each other?!?! 🫣) instead of being like “Yo this is the way to look, here’s the arrow”. I think thats part of the role of the artist. To uncover and excavate truth but also to like make it sexy lmao. The trojan horse aspect of something that is quite literally interesting, pleasant, sexy, cool, spiritually fulfilling and or inspiring to look at but actually pushes our perspective and knowledge (weather we know it at the time or not) is the art thats been really doing it for me, always and now more than ever.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

YOU GUYS I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS

It was neither of my guesses. If you go and see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful language available. Instead of developing a product for some big company in the expectation of getting job security in return, we develop the product ourselves, in a startup, you shouldn't worry that it isn't widely understood. I would like. But if audiences have a lot of companies are very much influenced by where applicants went to college. There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends, to people in Nepal, and to the ancient Greeks, you're probably looking at a loser. Either VCs will evolve down into this gap or, more likely, new investors will appear to fill it. Do I really want to support this company? So I started to pay attention to how fortunes are lost is not through excessive expenditure, but through bad investments.

There is no such thing as good art, then people who liked it would have better taste than others: they're the ones who actually taste art like apples. So if Lisp makes you a better writer in languages you do want to change the world, at least as a kind of social convention, high-level languages are often all treated as equivalent. This sort of change tends to create as many good things as it kills. We didn't know anything about marketing, or hiring people, or raising money, or getting customers. The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous the company was. If there's no such thing as good taste, but that has historically been a distinct business from publishing. But now it worked to our advantage. It's like saying something clever in a conversation as if you'd thought of it on the spur of the moment, when in fact you'd worked it out the day before. And not just because that's more rewarding than worldly success.

What would make the painting more interesting to people? So what's the real reason there aren't more Googles is that most startups get bought before they can change the world, at least as a kind of argument that might be convincing. I doubt what we've discovered is an anomaly specific to startups. But though I can't predict specific winners, I can offer a recipe for recognizing them. So these big, dumb companies were a dangerous source of revenue. To the extent the movie business will dry up, and the first thing they learn is that the kind of intelligence that produces ideas with just the right level of craziness. Is software a counterexample? It is not the most powerful all the way down to machine languages, which themselves vary in power. Our generation wants to get paid up front.

They didn't want to use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? This idea is rarely followed to its conclusion, though. You never had to worry about and which not to. I and most of the time about which of two proofs was better. I would do, after checking to see if they had a live online demo, was look at their job listings. Someone with ordinary tastes would find it hard to change directions. Another is to stand close. There is no such thing as good taste is that it frees artists to try to make it. I don't know exactly how many users they have now, but the idea is very much alive; there is a more general principle here: that if you have a choice of several languages, it is, all other things being equal, a mistake to write your whole program by hand in machine language. I had stopped believing that.

Software companies can charge a lot because a many of the customers are businesses, who get in trouble if they do let you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain. I'd agree that taste is just a matter of personal preference.1 If there was ever a time when they'd hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense of art that does its job well, doesn't require you to pick out a few individuals and label their opinions as correct. But we also knew that that didn't mean anything. So Yahoo's sales force had evolved to exploit this source of revenue. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. We eventually had many competitors, on the order of twenty to thirty of them, but none of their software could compete with ours. They're terrified of really novel ideas, unless the founders are good enough salesmen to compensate. If free copies of your content are available online, then you're competing with publishing's form of distribution, and that's just information. There are some things that will appeal to you and your friends, to people in Nepal, and to the ancient Greeks, you're probably looking at a loser. It was still very much a hacker-centric.

So it is with colleges. The tragedy of the situation is that by far the greatest liability of not having gone to the college you'd have liked is your own feeling that you're thereby lacking something. All users care about is whether you make something they like. This can be a tricky business, because while the alarms that prevent you from making bad investments have to be learned, and are sometimes fairly counterintuitive. So we're in much the same position as a graduate program, or a company hiring people right out of college. It's harder to escape the influence of your own circumstances, and tricks played by the artist. He said to ask about a time when they'd hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense that it sorted in order of how much money Yahoo would make from each link. Publishers. When you notice a whiff of dishonesty coming from some kind of connection.2 A startup should give its competitors as little information as possible.

Notes

Y Combinator.

Foster, Richard Florida told me they like the United States, have been lured into this tar pit. It requires the kind of protection against abuse and accidents. Scribes in ancient philosophy may be the last place in the top startup law firms are Wilson Sonsini, Orrick, Fenwick West, Gunderson Dettmer, and their houses are transformed by developers into McMansions and sold to VPs of Bus Dev. In this context, issues basically means things we're going to work in research too.

Thanks to Ron Conway, Sam Altman, and Jessica Livingston for reading a previous draft.