#if you don’t know medieval politics and culture

[the-daily-dreamer]

So like a critical component of understanding team green and Alicent’s motivation for pushing their claim is completely lost on this fandom because of the fact that it’s so irrelevant nowadays that we wouldn’t even consider it.

But like…for most of human history marriages, especially aristocratic marriages, were binding social contracts that were meant to provide benefits and incentives to both parties. The woman would perform her wifely duties of bearing heirs (sons), child rearing, emotional (and physical - sometimes against her will unfortunately) support, and generally running the household in domestic affairs. And in exchange for these labors and quite frankly difficult and at times harmful tasks the woman was provided with safety from the outside world, all her needs being taken care of, and her children being the heirs. And a woman’s son being the heir means consistent protection into her old age when her often much older husband eventually died.

There was a purpose to marriage outside of love and ambition. But because we are privileged enough to live in a more modern society where marriage is a personal contract for which the technicalities can be selected by both individuals to ensure security and happiness, we cannot really even consider that once upon a time in the not so distant past there was a clear purpose. The man got sons/heirs and the woman got sons/protectors to care for her in her old age.

So when Alicent pushes for her son she has a plethora of reasons: believing in tradition, protecting the lives of her children who have competing claims, consolidation of suffering, etc. But she has one very clear and very reasonable reason that nobody acknowledges. She delivered on her part of the bargain and contract and she wants to collect what she is owed. She produced the sons, she gave the emotional and physical support (against her genuine will), she reared the children, she ran the household domestically and the entire kingdom. She did “everything expected of her forever upholding the kingdom, the family, and the law”. And now it’s time for her to collect her dues now that her much, much older husband is dead. To have her son be king and to be taken care of into her old age.

That is the contract she agreed to. That is the contract almost every woman in history agreed to. I give you a son and I get comfort and security when you (the husband) die and my son becomes the heir.

So I can go on and on about the personal, psychological reasoning that Alicent has that are all perfectly valid. But I don’t have to because at the end of the day she did her part of this marital obligation and contract and she deserves to receive her rewards.

[bella-goths-wife]

How alec, Johnny and Jane court Cullen reader

Warnings: obsessive behaviour, possessive behaviour, oblivious reader, inexperienced reader, mentions of abuse from Cullens

Alec:

Alec has to be subtle about his affections and intentions with you

Your ‘family’ already hate him, they have since the day Edward was introduced to the volturi and could report to the Cullens every thought alec has had of you

His courting had to remain subtle for his forbidden flower, for his sweet Juliet to his Romeo

He found that at first his best option for being close to you was ask for a dance at one of the balls that the volturi threw for the introductions of new members of big time clans

These balls were for the most part mandatory, meaning your family couldn’t just lock you away and you could spend time with other vampires with minimal fear

Alec would walk to to you with one of the volturi kings next to him so that If you accepted a dance with him, they could distract the Cullens long enough for Alec to slip the two of you onto the ballroom floor

He never was one for dancing before you, coming from a poor village in the medieval times he never really had to learn

Even after joining the volturi, he copied basic moves whenever he had to dance with someone for the sake of politeness

But after meeting you and realising that you came from a different time period to him, he begged some of the female volturi members to teach him some steps to dances from your time

He tried to master them but sometimes you still have to correct him, to which he’ll claim that you must be seeing things to save himself embarrassment

He also tried to learn courting culture from your time, but he never could do with all the politeness from it

He preferred being improper with you, it gave him the opportunity to see the real you

So he’d sneak up to your room after the Cullens locked you up for the night

He’d sneak through the window and the two of you would spend the night talking and laughing together, considering neither of you needed to sleep

It made him feel closer to you, made him feel special to have that time with you

He knew that no one else had that experience with you, and that made his worries of you being taken from him

He’s done everything in his power to make sure the vampire clans know that he has claim on you and is courting you, he’s seen the newer clans looking at you like a piece of meat and he thought it best to show who you belong to

If any others try and intrude on your time together, they’ll be hissed at viciously and the volturi kings will be told of the interference to their plan to match you with either Alec or Jane

His last act of devotion to you was to swear you that he will free you from the Cullens grasp, and you can only pray he’s truthful

Jane:

Jane isn’t the most loving person

She struggles to express most emotions, but showing her adoration and love is the hardest

So she tries to court you in more practical ways, such as acts of service

Anything that you need doing, she will have the task completed by sundown

Your struggling to find clothes because the Cullens only give you childish clothes? Jane had handmade clothes tailored to match and compliment your body type and skin colour and she leaves them in your room for you

You’re thirsty but you don’t have any blood to feed with? Jane killed a human for you two to share during your teatime

She even asks for it to be baked into pastry’s even though neither of you can digest food anymore so you both end up coughing it up

You need entertainment while you’re locked away in your room? Jane will sit outside your door and read your favourite books and poems to you and keep you entertained

She also tries to work on her physical affection for you

She offers you an arm when you walk together through the garden at night, she places her hand over yours when you need comforting, she will place small kisses on your hand when greeting you in private

These are all things she never thought she’d be comfortable with until she met you, so she’s slowly improving in private

When she’s feeling extra possessive, she will cover you head to toe in her signature scent either by spraying you with perfume or briefly holding you and rubbing her cheek against your neck

This means she can put a subtle claim on you to show that you are hers and that anyone who tries to touch you will feel the wrath of her painful stare

Her final act of devotion from when she saw you last was swearing to free you from the Cullens so the two of you could stay near each other forever

She does all of this and yet your still completely oblivious to the affections her and her twin hold for you

Johnny (post meeting you)

Johnnys methods of courting is mainly just trying to help you discover more of yourself and help you separate your identity from the one forced upon you by the Cullens

I suppose it would fall under the category of quality time as he will spend hours upon hours with you helping you learn a new skill or remember an old memory

He helps you acclimate to the more modern parts of society that the Cullens never taught you about, such as dating culture and party culture

He tries to find things for the two of you to do that he thinks you’ll enjoy the most

An example of this is him taking you to a petting zoo and letting you control all the cute animals because it made you feel better then hunting with the Cullens

He also used his power to his advantage and he will shape his shadows to make shadowy animal figures for you to admire

He will also get very secretly proud of himself every time he sees you’ve enjoyed yourself doing an activity he chose out

He’s also very big into PDA as he’s less afraid of what the Cullens will do to him

He’s always got an arm around your shoulders or waist when you walk or he’s holding your hand as you talk to each other

But always with permission, he understands that you can have a slight touch Phobia because of your time with the Cullens

He was also raised as a lord, so all of his courting will subconsciously be very gentlemanly despite his playful and rough persona

So that means the sidewalk rule is being obeyed, he’s always taking your arm when you walk together and he’s always generally acting with honour and decency

He’ll do all this and you’ll still swear that he hates you though

Thoughts guys? 😭

[inlandempir]

post on one of the dev forums for disco elysium, titled "THE BENEFITS OF A MODERN FANTASY WORLD". text version beneath the cut

There's been a lot of art and tech talk so far, it's all kinda dry or saccharine. I think it's time to juice it up by throwing in a proper essay.

THE BENEFITS OF A MODERN FANTASY WORLD

The world of No Truce! (we do have a proper name for it, but we’re shy) is not what you’d call “a generic genre world”. It is not pseudo-medieval stasis, as Forgotten Realms was, nor is it Fallout’s campy barbarism with guns. It is also not a Harry Potter/Batman/vampire fantasy world, which is basically “our world with a secret/special world within it”. Neither is it the tech-obsessed ‘punks’ of steam and cyber. It’s a modern fantasy world, a fantasy world in its modernity, which roughly corresponds to the middle part of our XXth century. Now that kind of thing opens up an array of new possibilities. It is a world with a promise of non-staticness, meaning, things appear undecided — they could go one way or the other. It is close enough to our own world for things to have meaning in it, it is a proper frame in which to explore themes relevant to our own society such as bigotry, power relations, politics, bureaucratic apparati, geopolitical relations, philosophy, ideology, religion et cetera. A pseudo-medieval world is not a proper frame for truly exploring themes of, for example, sexuality, for it lacks 1) a proper concept of sexuality, 2) an actual idea of societal progress and 3) a clear ideological dominant, which would be the place where values come from. All you can do in a static, societally unstructured world is give out-of-place shoutouts to present day communities for cheap popularity (“this is exactly my sexual orientation, how did they know?!”).

We find the ideological dominant missing because the western world is traditionally culturally critical of ideological dominants – critical of both state and religion. Anyhow, a classic fantasy world would feature two main ideologies – the “good” and the “evil”, of which the former is selfless and compassionate, but the other one is selfish and cruel. The attempts to overcome that have given us the Grittywelt – a world in which everyone is an asshole and pessimism rules the day. Unsurprisingly, Grittywelt is also static as hell and meaningful change is foreclosed from it. It is a “protection from false hopes”. As such, it is heavily unrealistic. Much more realistic would be people living in super gritty conditions, but not looking the part, that is, not really noticing the abnormal harshness of their conditions, because they don’t have much to compare them to, and being hopeful towards the next day, because surprise! This is how you do it. Survive, I mean. Being depressed is a luxury. In a way, I’d say we’re trying to create the obverse of the Grittywelt – a world in which everyone is empathizable, sort of a hero of their own story.

The modern era is also a fitting vessel for anachronisms – do we not have actual cyborg limbs and donkey-pulled carts operating in the same world at the modern era? Capitalism can also contain little feudalisms in a way, in which a single man or single family controls the entire economy of a town or a village and profits from it. And at the same time, it can also contain little socialist utopias, scientist villages, in which everything is provided by the State. Aside from being a basic feature of reality (anachronism is nothing more than time failing to fit the stereotype about it), it is also a lovable creative tool, allowing for a plethora of what-if-scenarios. Imagine a modern world, only without television; imagine a modern world in which there never was a global war, imagine a world in which fossil fuels are less available. Now, if you will, imagine one which has forgotten its antiquity, and one, in which there is not just water between the continents, but something worse as well — an anti-reality mass we call “pale” (also more on that later). Now imagine one, which has a legitimate and operative “religion of history” in place, which seeks for people it deems special enough to be the “vessel of progress”. (This is not an alternate history thing, by the way. An alternate history takes place in our world quite recognizably and has no more than one divergence point from history as it happened.)

One might ask, why would we not create an even more modern world, if we wanted to maximise our possibilities? Well one of the answers is that it would have destroyed the necessary element of escapism, another is that we cannot create a good alternate Information Era because we ourselves fail to understand the Information Era (More precicely, we have the information era in its infancy and it works via radio relays). We are too close to it and it is too new to understand it, it is “in progress”. The third reason would be that technology is not a fascinating subject for modern science fiction. It’s become a natural part of our reality. We don’t believe it’s going to save us anymore – it has failed to deliver for too long. I am of the belief that the themes of science fiction today are societal, political and psychological (one could maybe add aesthetical to it, for we also love the world for its beauty). All fantastic or sci-fi elements are means for best exploring those themes.

I have filled my page. That’s all for the time being. Thank you for reading.

Martin Luiga Writer

[yes-these-obsessions-are-healthy]

Just struck me that I still don’t know whether the Veil should be taken down or not.

For ten years, I’ve read Solavellan stories of Lavellan fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Veil from coming down. These stories were from the very reasonable perspective that “What’s done is done. Modern Thedas has problems just as the Pre-Veil world did. You need to let go of your regrets and live with the consequences. You can make change here and now in the present.” In pretty much every Solavellan story that tackles this topic of Past v. Present, Lavellan is using her political influence to secure serious change for elves and greater protections for the Dalish especially. These stories are not in favor of preserving the abusive status quo. Rather, Lavellan convinces Solas that his place is at her side teaching the elves the truth of the gods and the past and using his Wisdom to change hearts and minds as he always wished.

There’s also the obvious “Why are you risking the mass deaths of all these people? Is there really no way to take down the Veil safely? Safely-er???”

But for people who want the Veil to be taken down, the arguments can be summarized as the Veil being the status quo, and its continued existence is perpetuating it. The world was meant to be magical; the Veil must be undone to bring the world back to what it normally was. The elves deserve their power and magic back, etc. etc. One could argue that Solas keeping the veil up is him still bound to his past decisions, and worse, folding to the pressure of the status quo and betraying his role of rebeller.

The biggest point of contention for me is that it is not made clear in the slightest what exactly will happen if the Veil is taken down, and while I’m all for the destruction of oppressive systems, when it comes to something like literal MAGIC, I feel like I’m well within my right to be skeptical and apprehensive since Solas is pointedly vague about the specifics. In Trespasser, he says, to paraphrase “..even if this world must die”. The word die is not expounded upon. Die, how? Are we talking the abstract, metaphorical meaning of the word “die” (i.e. the French monarchy ‘died’ and a republic government was born from it), or do we mean a more visceral “die” (i.e. it’s gonna be like a nuclear reactor meltdown and people are going to keel over like they stepped into the Elephant Foot room in Chernobyl because of the sudden tsunami of magic re-entering the world), or do we mean both?

Solavellan fics have taken this to mean what is essentially a global genocide that will destroy most people, and thus the arguments with Solas over the years have been, to sum up a few examples, “You killed a world. You would kill a second world to bring back the first?” and ‘We *are* just as real as the ancient elves were. You need to accept that we are, and accept that the Elvhen empire is gone.” and “We are (elves) are not lesser than our ancestors, we are different. This world is no more broken than the one before. You had all the magic in the world and the elves used it to enslave and kill one another and tranquil the Titans. In this world we have far less access to magic and similar issues with slavery and the Chantry and Tevinter mageocracy. The suffering is just as widespread, but the magnitude is lesser by several degrees (the difference between the devastation and suffering incurred from medieval warfare v. modern warfare).”

The contention of not wanting Solas to tear down the Veil hinges on this ambiguity, and of Solas not seeing the modern elves as real or his people.

Now we can argue: “Solas is lost in the sauce of regret and more than a little blinded from culture shock and nostalgia in his motivation to tear down the veil since half of it stems from his wish to bring back the eminence and power of the ancient elves.’ —-From this we can only surmise what his intentions are here, even. Does he mean elevation and equality (elves will be more powerful but not necessarily treated as superior to the other races—separate but equal), or does he mean ‘the elves were far more powerful and superior to other races in their own way, and we are restoring that’, with the implication that, like elves in other fantasies, they’ll have powers and eminence that could overshadow the other races, and that is simply how nature intended it to be (read: sneaking in some soft social darwinist essentialism))—-‘but yes, the Veil does need to come down because the byproduct will be that elves and mages get more power’.

And beyond that resides a semi magical ecological reason: his wish to see magic and spirits meld with the world once again since that’s how it originally was. The Veil, he states, is unnatural.

What is also confusing is between Trespasser and Veilguard, Solas remains inconsistent on who “the people” are. In a memory he says “the people need me”. Veilguard makes it out like he’s somewhat quietly accepted the modern elves as his people. Probably lesser or somewhat rendered inferior by their supreme distance from the elvhen empire and their lack of magic, but still his responsibility, the living legacy of his mistakes.

I suppose the thorn in my brain is that

The ironic thing is that I’m all for the destruction of the status quo and oppressive systems so long as there’s a clear, cohesive game plan. Fucking go nuts. But when it comes to change in fictional worlds, I get really nervous, probably because most people don’t know how to write or plot out massive societal change in a way that’s believable or well-thought out since fiction can’t ever competently account for the infinite fractals of perspective and experience under such tumultuous events. There is always going to be some glaring oversight since fiction authors are forced to cram a thousand different affected elements into a single narrative, and you will always end up with a story that either leans pro-revolution or anti-revolution, even if it’s a 51%/49% split. Someone is going to be unhappy with the argument made by the text in question. Someone is going to argue that it doesn’t account for X, Y, Z…

Where am I going with this.. Yeah I’m conflicted about the “to tear down the veil or not” because it is so wrapped up in one man’s personal emotional journey. Liberals like to inexplicably twist and weave individual stories into revolution narratives in order to 1) humanize a large abstract political movement but also 2) Use the character as a personification of the movement, with their personality and morality a direct reflection of the morality, and thus validity, of the movement.

It’s an ouroboros of logos and pathos ethos. We can sympathize with Solas because of the cause he champions. By way of literary device, our view of the cause is (deliberately or unconsciously) meant to be influenced by Solas’s personality: the face of the Rebellion and of elf emancipation, a thoughtful, somber, conflicted man with many huge blunders and misjudgments under his belt. He means well, but will his plan work? Perhaps it’s best that everything be left alone. He’s the one with the power to pull it off, but how many of his plans have backfired? This along with the aforementioned ambiguity of what will happen to the world when it’s torn down leaves us with a discordant uncertainty. We want elves to have rights, we want mages to be more free, we want spirits to not be so easily corrupted.

The writers clearly want the Veil to be kept up. It’s “the right thing to do” because tearing down the Veil will mean the “death” of modern Thedas. The fact there isn’t an outright statement of “yeah this is what will happen during this ‘death’” is used as a discouragement, but I feel like that sticking point was written in a day and age when people had fucks left to give about the system, when there was still a healthy fear of unknown risk and a preference for a theoretical scenario where change is slow, regimented, monitor-able, with casualties all but 0.

The game peddling this same fear of change in 2024 is being given to a world that is now more and more commonly scoffing at reluctance to implement systemic change for fear of the unknown. “Who cares, elves deserve rights.”

But is the world Solas is promising actually possible? He has done so many things that have resulted in disastrous, world-changing, life-ruining, unintended consequences. We simply don’t know how modern bodies will react to a sudden global influx of magic to the atmosphere, how many benign spirits will become corrupted when they’re suddenly in direct contact with mortals who are just stewing in their negative emotions that will be undoubtedly heightened by the apocalypse. There are bubbles of the Veil that act all funky and get Veil jumpers killed all the time. Those are simply bubbles.

Varric: People are dying

Solas: That’s what people do

All art is political. It all has a message. Unintended, intended, subliminal, explicit, personal, popular interpretation, weird tinfoil hattery.

The cognitive dissonance, or discomfort I feel is that Solas’s story exemplifies two simultaneous arguments: One, that you need to move on past your regret. You need to live here, now. Life is making mistakes. You may make the largest mistakes, you may work every day to atone for them, but at a certain point you need to accept that this is what life is. You can mourn, you can grieve, you can even still feel pangs of guilt and shame, but you have to be more than that, more than a martyr. Some people are not meant to be the hero. You should focus on putting good into the world now, changing it for the future, not to seek out the past.

That is a beautiful tragic sentiment, especially when the sorrow and guilt are magnified a thousand-fold by the knowledge that your actions have led to the death and suffering of so many in your sincere pursuit of protecting people. When does the sense of responsibility and duty become a spiral of self-destruction? When is the time to stop when all of your efforts make things worse and worse? Solas was a man who took action when action is clearly not in his wheelhouse because the grass is always greener for him. He cannot live with making huge pyrrhic choices because he empathizes so keenly with all sapient life and the tragedy of “what could’ve been”…

But then the second underlying argument posed by the upkeep of the Veil, if you’re Epler: Revolution is bad. Change even for a good cause is bad. Live with the shit rules you have.

idk I’m just getting my thoughts down. I guess I’m still pro- preserve the Veil solely because my personality forbids me from committing to such a choice without knowing the full list of side effects, which Solas (or maybe the writers themselves) haven’t thought out. And again it’s really weird because I don’t have these same reservations about real world social justice and progress. 😶

[literary-illuminati]

Book Review 13 – A Memory Called Empire by Arkady Martine

Okay, getting back into writing these reviews before I fall so far behind that catching up is just impossible. Memory is the first book this year that I’ve actually read before; I’m rereading as the first choice for a theoretical book club with some friends. Honestly quite enjoyed the experience, if only because trying to jot down some things to say when discussing it forced me to take it a little slower this time.

To get the technical details out of the way – the book won the Hugo, and did basically deserve it. The writing’s lovely and occasionally downright poetics, the two leads are both insanely compelling, and the court intrigue is appropriately convoluted and byzantine for what is obviously Constantinople IN SPACE. It’s just overall a joyous read.

So Martine’s clearly very fascinated by the experience of having your standards of aesthetics, and sophistication, and civilization defined by a culture which has never even bothered to notice your existence. The simultaneous rapture at being in the heart of the universe that you’ve read about your entire life, and deep alienation knowing you’ll never actually be a part of it. How ever most of the people trying to be friendly and compliment you don’t even notice how patronizing they’re being. And so on and etc. Mahit’s internal monologue does a really good job of selling the ambivalence of it, especially in the party scene.

The book does an excellent job of actually selling the palace district as a site of imperial grandeur, too, every building buried in symbolic aesthetics and ritual significance. But also just, like, actually impressive and grand to read about. All the contrasts between the oveflowing abundance in the city and life on Lsel are fascinating too – Martine makes really good use of the little worldbuilding quotes at the start of chapters to sell the difference. The one that really stuck in my head was a quote from a tourism

guide explaining all the myriad fine dining choices for tourists visiting the City followed directly by a Lseli agricultural report about how new hydrophonic techniques had increased rice yield sufficiently to support a whole hundred non-replacement births in the next generation (it helps that all the Teixicalaanli food legitimately sounds pretty amazing). Though the time where Mahit’s internal monologue short circuited over the idea of carrying a pregnancy to term in your own body – wasteful! Depriving the station of a necessary laborer for months and months when perfectly good artificial wombs are right there! So decadent – is a close second.

Martine is, as I understand it, a Byzantinist, and oh boy can you tell. The city’s a little bit Tenochtitlan in the aesthetics and the religion, but it really is overwhelmingly space Constantinople. The theoretically absolute emperor dealing with mobs in the streets willing and potentially able to acclaim a usurper, the constant risk of legions doing the same, the basic fact that there’s a vast empire which is viewed as nothing but an adjunct or extension of the capital city which is the entirety of all political life and the place everyone whose anyone needs to be, and so on.

In a way, the obvious Byzantine-ness of the Teixicalaanli makes them seem less imperialist than just imperial, at least from Mahit’s perspective. Which is to say, well, first of all that ‘empire’ has far too many meanings and distinguishing them is hard, but the Teixicalaanli don’t expand like the British or French, in constant competition over captive markets and strategic locations, they don’t feel some glorious burden of manifest destination or a mission civilisatrice that requires universal dominion. They already are the universe, or at least everything worthwhile in it, they go to war like medieval kings or Roman princeps – to win glorious victories and so show the empire they have the right to rule it.

The relation between Lsel and Teixicalaan – well, if suffers from the standard space opera lack of scale, first of all. The stationers number in the tens of thousands – the empire must be in the hundreds of billions, minimum. ‘Realistically’ Six Directions would never have found out about the imago device because relations with them would have been handled by some mid-ranking provincial governor, only showing up in travelogues and fanciful ethnographies. But leaving that aside, Teixicalaanli myopia also means that the cultural imperialism that the book’s so fascinated by is oddly...blameless? Teixicalaan presumably has brutal campaigns dedicated to stamping out native cultures and integrating them into the empire, but there’s hardly one directed at Lsel. The general sense you get is one of vaguely tragic inevitability – that the mismatch in size and wealth is such that of course any sort of even slightly free exchange of media and ideas will lead to Stationer culture being overwhelmed. Makes me think about arguments around CanCon regulations.

(The whole Roman, medieval feel of the empire means it all kind of calls to mind various Germanic elites actively reaching for Roman iconography and institutions to legitimize themselves as much as anything, though of course that’s not really right.)

The book’s politics are, I think, a bit limited by the degree it’s laser-focused on the very uppermost tip of imperial society – the book seems to know this too, given the thirty page digression into cyberpunk two thirds of the way through (speaking of which, I absolutely adore the fact that the elegant, ritually harmonious and utterly aesthetic architecture lasts about three metro stops away from the palace before everything starts turning into economical concrete blocks). Which isn’t really a knock on the book, but I do think some of the praise of it does get a bit overblown; there’s a limit to how much insight you can really have on imperialism when you’re so focused on the stories an empire tells about itself in its most rarified and luxurious heart.

In much the same way there’s something very, I don’t know, ‘written in America in the late 2010s’ about the political imagination the book allows itself. There are people who don’t want the world to be the world, and maybe they can help a bit, but the actual players in the game of thrones are corrupt oligarchs and populist warmongers, you know?

All that said, the book sure does portray a city that views itself as synonymous with civilization. I only realized there was a Teixicalaanli word for foreigner that wasn’t ‘barbarian’ when one of the probably-terrorists made a point of using it during the whole cyberpunk interlude. Which retroactively makes, like, every single other Teixicalaanli character in the book waaaaay more of an asshole. (fanfic thought - Teixicalaanli attempts to talk even vaguely respectfully to/about foreigners as analogous to people trying to be gender neutral or talk about nonbinary people in really strongly genedered languages, right down to the awkward neologisms that the ‘average citizens’ rolls their eyes at. What’s the Teixicalaanli term for ‘the woke plague.’?)

Also – not really a better place to put this in, but something I really do like about the worldbuilding is that no one has anything like the same ideas of what constitutes political legitimacy as the contemporary liberal default? Lsel is a corporatist state, where political power is divided between what are basically guilds who seem to have wide remit to make policy within their jurisdiction, with only one seat on the council seeming to have any sort of election. And Teixicalaan is, of course, a bureacratic-verging-on-stratocratic monarchy, with a strong sense of popular involvement in government, but through demonstrations and rioting instead of any formal process. It’s enjoyable that neither place is actually, like, familiar.

The motor of the book’s plot is byzantine (or Byzantine, I suppose) court intrigue, and as someone who loves polite conversations and poetic allusions followed directly by assassination attempts, I adored it. That said, I’m going to be a slob demanding everything be hand fed to me for a minute and saying that it all got positively opaque by the end. Which is, I suppose, entirely realistic, given Mahit’s position and role in everything, but still I wanted an Agathe Christie drawing room denouncement so bad. Was Ten Pearl actively backing the coup? If not, what was up with the Sunlit? And the Cityshocks? Why was the Information Ministry so politically passive and uninvolved in a literal coup attempt? How was Eight Loop involved in the whole final resolution, given it was her people keeping the emperor safe but it was Nineteen Adze who was with him on camera? All these questions and more, unanswered and, probably, irrelevant! But like, inquiring minds want to know.

Though speaking of the coup, I really did absolutely adore how, like,incompetent and amateurish both coup attempts were? Which seems like it would be a plot hole, but actually it’s probably the strongest argument the book can make for Six Direction’s immortality plan – the empire has been peaceful for so long no one remembers how to do a coup.

Anyway, yes! Extremely good book, Mahit and Seagrass are absolutely great protagonists. Not at all sorry I’m peer pressuring people into reading it.

[musicfeedsmysoul12]

The Top Reasons Why You Should Know Geology as a Writer

Hello, lovelies! A project for my Introduction to Geology class was to create a ‘promotion’ of Geology as it can be used for things other then you know, tourism or warning of natural disasters. Me, being the writer, decided to create this post that I will be posting for the fun of it. As this is a creative project, I decided to write it as I normally write posts here on my blog.

First off, writing is a complicated business when it comes down to it. Particularly when you get into the idea of worldbuilding. As someone who has two different worlds I’ve been working on creating, one thing that helps a lot is geology in general. I know, it sounds a bit crazy to think about. But it’s true. Geology is the study of the earth itself, and knowing how the earth works, even if it’s just basic concepts, helps build a world. After all, a town in the mountains and a town by the seaside may suffer from different natural disasters, but it comes from the same thing: the shifting of tectonic plates.

Let’s say that you’re building a world where your main character lives in the mountains. What sort of mountain town? Is it a mining town? Is it a town for tourists? In this little example, I will use a prototype for a story I am working on, where the main character lives in a town with a hot spring. How do hot springs form? Would this affect the area of the mountain town? The answer to this, of course, is geothermal heat that is pushed upwards to the upper crust. Once you know that, trying to figure out the environmental impacts of this occurs next. Then you have to think about the dangers of hot springs and so on, and how the people you have created would react to them.

Hot springs, and in general geothermal sites, have had religious or cultural connections for centuries! Think of all the health gurus talking about going to a hot spring to soak away the pain due to the minerals in a spring. Think of how people will purposely hike to get to a hot springs to soak in! An entire culture can be built around a hot springs to. Communal bathing is quite common across cultures, and a hot springs can be the site for potential political talks or even just a place of relaxation for people.

Adding to the above, you now have a tourism aspect, a possible religious aspect, an environmental concern, and a culture ready to be built up all based on a geological matter! I mean, look at the picture; it’s an image from a national parks website (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/hot-springs.htm if any of you wanna look). We can see how a geological function like a hot spring can affect tourism here! Look at how many people are watching this! Even in a more medieval setting, you can’t doubt people wouldn’t line up to see this!

Let’s continue with another thought, and that is how places tend to end up settled. There are plenty of guidebooks that inform us how, as well, you can look at history! Natural resources are the answer to that, with water being a primary reason behind the settlement of many areas. But there are other resources that may have a settlement show up. Some may be organic, but others would be things such as coal, materials such as stone to create things, or it could be something like gems that people mine for money. 

As well, by considering what natural resources are around, you determine more landscape as a result of these. The picture below is a picture of the world’s largest open-pit diamond mine. Imagine that something like this exists in your story. 

And how does this happen?

Did you guess geology? You’d be right! Geology is such an ingrained process in world-building that writers don’t tend to see it. And let’s be real, if you have a group of people who live by a mine and a group of people who live by a lake, there are vastly different concerns each other has. This again comes down to the effects geology has on EITHER of these things.

Some writers ignore how geology works. JR Tolkein may have been a fantastic writer, but in the end his ideas on mountains were pretty wrong. Not bad, just wrong. While I’ll never say you can’t bend some rules for the fun of it when writing fantasy, I will say most people enjoy the sprinkling of reality littering the pages of their work rather then not. As well, it’s easier on the writer to. 

I mean, I prefer not to wonder what sort of dangers there are in my worlds.  If I can take a two-second Google Search to get an idea of it, it’s easier than trying to think of these things myself. Look to the above picture! We now have, in fact, at least 6 (6!!) things to include as worries for your little fishing village on the ocean. And guess what?! TWO of these things are related to geology! 

So, to recap so far: Geology can be used to not only give your world either income, but it can also enable you to create a religion based on things around them, it can be used to create interesting landscapes and can give you natural disasters that are connected to said landscapes!

Wanna know what ELSE Geology can be used for?

Naming your little villages and towns. No, I am NOT kidding.

Look, people name places either after relatives, or themselves or they looked around frantically before pointing at the nearest rock and went: ROCK TOWN. Don’t believe me?

In Alberta, we have: High River, Slave Lake, Okotoks (A reference to Big Rock, using the Blackfoot word for rock, "ohkotok"), Diamond Valley, Fox Creek, Milk River, Peace River, Pincher Creek, Rocky Mountain House- the list just goes on and on and on!! And again, GEOLOGY. Struggling with naming your little mountain town? Did you but a mine near it? What does the mine produce? Diamonds?

Boom. Diamondville. It’s that easy when you’ve created the geology of the world, you can just use words from your area! No more hard time thinking about it, just GO FOR IT!

So, in the end: learn geology. It gives you a way to create culture, economic concerns, a name for places and even see what sort of local concerns there are in even the smallest village. 

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

umm if you could “fix” the cruel prince, how would you do it?

Hm so the problem with Cruel Prince imo is that it’s not very cohesive and meanwhile has a lot of plot points that feel redundant to me. So on some level fixing it would require generating entirely new content. And then there are so many directions you could go in with that, and like are we trying to keep to Holly Black’s vision? Am I her hypothetical developmental editor here or am I just writing a version I would personally enjoy? The answers would be wildly different!

Personally, for me the most interesting parts of the book center Jude and her place in Faerie. How she grapples with the memory of her dead mother, and the looming threat of suffering a similar fate. And how, in distancing herself, she places herself in a false dichotomy where if she is not Eva, then she has to become Madoc

Like I don’t care about Cardan beyond how he can facilitate that! I’m here for Jude, her relationship to her fractured family, and her capacity for ruthlessness

Anyway I think the book simply starts out poorly. The contemporary high school vibe to the interpersonal drama is an ill fitting one. The way Jude and Taryn are bullied doesn’t feel grounded in their lives and like faerie culture beyond just… looking like school yard bullying for the sake of plot. Why is faerie high school even a thing?? Culturally how did that even happen with the medieval trappings of their society?? (Ironically I am fine with the high school vibes in TGT despite it being equally/more incongruous in-universe, but it serves a thematic and narrative function, so I can accept it.)

There was also a general tonal incongruity. I felt like there was a lot of stuff in Jude’s backstory that was very harrowing and felt analogous to real world trauma. Madoc has strong domestic abuser vibes. The fact that he murdered the twins’ parents and is just… awkwardly their terrifying adoptive father now is scary! Meanwhile several past instances where Jude’s been mistreated for being a human in Faerie feels nearly like sexual assault allegory. The faerie fruit bit, the guard biting her finger as a child, even her being forced to dance in the revel. They’re all incredibly traumatic moments for her, but are never given as much weight as I would like. And they just end up feeling way less potent next to the bullies like throwing her stuff into the river and kicking sand in her food, where the latter is framed as the more important thing to her. It’s not even that she can’t do anything about frightening adults but these dumb kids she can at least try to fight back against. It just doesn’t feel thought through at all

So I would personally prefer if how scary and violating it was had been highlighted more as opposed to the sillier bullying. Like if she were being treated reasonably well next to the constant knowledge that things like that could always happen to her, that who knows what the fae would do to her if it weren’t for Madoc’s position? I feel like that would just be much more interesting and emotionally organic feeling

Also like the twins’ social capital has always felt weird to me. On the one hand Madoc is super socially and politically important— which they keep mentioning! And Locke is apparently willing to marry Taryn. On the other, apparently literally everyone feel comfortable treating them like shit, not even fearing Madoc’s retribution. Like idk if it was established that Madoc would be disappointed in them for not handling things for themselves therefore they never go to him (and the court gradually catch on that they can get away with tormenting them with no consequences) that would work for me. But it just doesn’t feel even handed. Like we know Jude isn’t going to say anything but how do they!

Apparently Madoc easily replaced her pen (as a kid lol) when Valerian stole it. So apparently at one point she was comfortable talking about the bullying. If he got scary enough over time that she didn’t want to say anything anymore I wish it was laid out. There’s simply no timeline for the bullying and no sense of how and why it happens and why Jude doesn't report it. It just starts out feeling kind of flimsy

But that is to say, right off the bat we’re getting rid of Faerie High. It’s not a thing. Instead Cardan and his posse of important fae kids can be tutored privately and Jude and Taryn are included as a personal favor to Madoc. Which is something Cardan would take immense offense to!! Also a sort of bullying that just has more deniability than kicking dirt in their food. Like all smiles while also doing terrible shit

As for Cardan and his friends… I have some issues with them

Cardan’s overall character concept of a mostly normal guy who’s stuck trying to keep up with, and to be perceived as the leader of, his insane bloodthirsty friends lest they turn on him, is a good one! But I dislike how the book leans into softening everything he’s ever done basically. Also treating the Jude letter— confirmation that he’s mean to her because he’s attracted to her essentially— as a way to soften him as opposed to framing him as a creep is kind of insane lol. Like the realization that your bully really wants to fuck you isn’t exactly a good one??? And there’s just so much you could do with that! But Holly Black simply does not. And then the Locke reveal ends up contributing to the vibe of cleaning Cardan up and making him into the guy who was Nice All Along. It’s just so cliche! So idk I think he should just be thornier

I also generally disliked how the Taryn and Locke situation was handled. I think there’s room for some very interesting contrasts to be made with Taryn as a literal mirror to Jude

Taryn represents everything Jude is desperately trying to escape. She deliberately embraces it no less. But despite their very different external personas, the twins take turns between each other in where they place their loyalties. Jude starts out seeming closest to Madoc, but by the series’ end Taryn is the one who’s truly acting for him. (Also, interestingly, they both end up killing their respective spouses. Though only Taryn does so in malice)

So in that sense, I think the love triangle with Locke feels fitting? But I dislike the execution. I think it mostly just feels too pointless and therefore mean spirited. I wish there was more emphasis on why Taryn chose to endure his stupid bargain

Locke’s status isn’t particularly a focus. But he’s friends with a prince and his mother was a former lover of the king’s. Presumably marrying him would be more advantageous than any other guy in Faerie. I would want to focus on that, on the security and respectability Taryn is chasing. There’s also something to be said for her going for the silliest kind of dandy coded guy at court as a sort of anti-Madoc, if she also has any fears of being murdered like Eva. Additionally there’s the question of whether a human could hope to have any real marriage prospects in faerie at all. Is there any degree of take what you can get mentality for her?

On a related note of the relationships and worldbuilding not fully adding up, Jude specifically saying that she wants to make her own way in court strongly highlights to me that I have no idea what route is being planned for her? Is it that Madoc’s so hands off and/or bemused at the prospect of raising mortal daughters that he has no real idea what the rest of their lives is going to look like? There’s so much focus on Jude wanting to go against the grain and prove herself, so I do wonder what following the grain would look like. Just living with him forever and never doing anything? Trying to pull a nepotism for a trivial position at court? Is garnering a prince/princess’s favor absolutely in their future?

I did think there was room for some more gendered exploration with Jude writing off the princesses circle moreso than even Balekin’s. With her wanting to be a knight so bad and meanwhile not respecting Oriana, and to a lesser extent Taryn, for being softer and more typically feminine, I feel like the bones of a theme are there. But Holly Black never does anything with it so I’m not sure if it’s even intentional

Pre-coup, from Jude’s pov we have no idea what she thinks her life is going to look like. She’s trying to break away really badly from something, and that’s a huge part of her motivations. But there’s no concrete answer about what she thinks that is. Even if it’s just terrifying uncertainty, I’d want that established!

If she thinks there are no plans then I wanted her to have more anxiety about that specifically, that they’re mortal, and basically… what if there isn’t any real path set out for them to succeed in faerie? What if it’s just being spelled servants or dead fridge wives?

Anyway I would focus on these things over the high school bullshit lol

Also if I had my way, the first book would be split in two. I’d push the coup to the sequel, and the first book can focus on the family drama and Jude’s like coming of age struggles. She’s worried about her future, she doesn’t know what it’s going to look like but she’s terrified of ending up like Eva. I’d then keep her motivation to become a knight and enter Dain’s service but then diverge with her joining the court of shadows and expanding on that as her main way of coming into herself. I’d just give Jude more time to bond with them? And maybe get better at spying lol but the bad intrigue/spying specifics is also baseline just an author failing. Also because Dain was hot and I would like to see more of him

But yeah I’d honestly like an entire plot focused on them unraveling some sort of court intrigue thing. It would really like to focus on Jude’s mother, so it would probably have to do something with uncovering some scheme that hatched when she was at court? Highlighting the fact that the far are wildly long lived and so their schemes and rivalries span lifetimes. The Locke love triangle thing could stay in this book, tho the Oak reveal would be pushed back. Cardan I would keep as a rival for her and keep her surprise bonding with him over the coup events in the second book. If eye am writing this towards my own interests then she would absolutely be hooking up with Dain— probably when things fall to pieces with Locke. If not, then she can just have her same hero worship vibes from a distance. Basically I want the hero worship she’s got for him to feel earned though, and for his eventual death to feel more impactful

Book two I would open with Taryn getting married to Locke. The coup can be the midpoint. The fallout can be pretty similar, and then it can end with Cardan ascending the throne. I do really like how the coup goes down in canon, and how Jude ends up out scheming everyone to put herself in power. The ending holds a lot of promise! The second book just doesn’t deliver though

Then I’d essentially combine aspects of the second and third book. Have her with the bargain over Cardan’s head. And she can be like actually puppet mastering him as opposed to them??? not speaking???? about anything???? With her main flaw clearly being that she’s refusing to accept any help in good faith from anyone and is instead going way too far making sure she’s completely in control at all times. My biggest gripe with the later books were that they always held Jude back and never allowed her any dignity or respect from anyone even though it seemed like with how institutionally powerful she is at the time, they’d at least pay her lip service!

Also twice!! the books end on a cliffhanger where Cardan’s meant to look like he’s kind of scary and going to have his revenge on her and then he’s just a slightly mean drunk for the entire fucking series. Like. I would like some follow through there. They should be fighting like insane people, imo

Anyway and then we can do some variation of the undersea plot where she’s kidnapped. But just… not due to gross negligence on her part maybe! The way her control of everything slips is really good! I found the plot device of just… keeping her away from the palace… as a means to stop her from meddling pretty cheap. But I would like her to come back and realize that everything has changed in her absence and the power dynamics have flipped. (Which, you know, only works if she was ever allowed any fucking power) Maybe the undersea kept her long enough that her bargain with Cardan ran out. Maybe she thinks he tactically drew out negotiations to get her back for that long for that to happen

The series constant, fairly juvenile, refusal to let Jude acknowledge that Cardan remotely gives a shit about her was annoying. But some degree of miscommunication and misinterpretation of actions can be fun! I just can’t deal with the constant “but does he like like me 🥺🥺” middle school stuff on repeat sjfhff

Anyway here Jude can refuse to see that she and Cardan could actually like… feasibly work together in good faith (especially against a common adversary in the Undersea!) without her having to have him magically enslaved lmao. And that can be her main failing here

She can flee Cardan after a huge falling out over this. I think she should throw in with Madoc and Taryn. Just because I would love to explore what their faction is up to more! She can be bitter about how she’s being sidelined and so *clearly* the correct response to this is to just completely change sides lol. Tangentially, maybe we can see a bit here about things having majorly soured between Taryn and Locke

I like the killing spouses theme, and I intend to do away with the snake Cardan plotline (and Jude being forced to kill him) so I think Madoc and Taryn should just outright convince her to poison Cardan— which preserves some of the tail end of TWK. Jude goes back, with some poison, and pretends to make up with Cardan in order to spike his drink. He can use this opportunity to confess feelings, that he was convinced she had left for good and he’s so glad she’s back, idk how devastated he was while she was being held prisoner etc etc. They never really have like proper emotional pay off scenes in canon imo so I think they really need something where they sit and talk about feelings. But Jude is doing this under false pretenses and she could be feeling massively fucking guilty about it. And just her luck he’s not even drinking from his poisoned goblet that much because he wants to be sober for this conversation lol and lmao. Anyway maybe, as per canon, he can also offer to marry her as a compromise to the bargain having concluded. While Jude is wallowing in doubt and guilt, I would somehow like to get Balekin into the room to drink the rest of Cardan’s poisoned drink. He drops dead! (Which should matter to Cardan!!) And also it’s super easy to put two and two together for who poured that drink and who it was meant for. Maybe they could’ve been privately talking but somewhere semi public? At a revel or whatever? Anyway I would like there to be an audience as per canon, and he can exile her! As per canon! But fucking mean it!!! (And Jude hasn’t married him in this scenario to be able to unexile herself) Because it being a misunderstanding pissed me off but also, again, the series never made good on Cardan as any real threat to her

Anyway book three can still have Taryn killing Locke. I would like there to be a bit more motive than “she was mad at him” but I’ve already spent too much time thinking about this. So. insert possibly some intrigue related motive. Or maybe he was going to divorce her and she was about to lose the security and status afforded to her by the marriage— which she could still keep as a widow. Anyway I do like the initially teased premise of Jude having to stand in for Taryn for the murder trial. I think Cardan recognizing her on sight was frankly a cop out, so I would probs lean into generating plot towards that. And focusing on Jude’s very conflicted feelings over seeing him again even though he doesn’t know it’s her. He should probs still figure out like just pre mid point, and they can talk it out. The sappy letters he sent her in canon are good so maybe it’s revealed that he’d actually cooled down and taken it back, had been writing to her, etc but Jude’s family had been keeping the letters from her?

And yeah idk insert some sort of intrigue plotline to carry the remaining half of the book, where they probs have to team up against Madoc as the final boss. And Jude learning to trust and be vulnerable without having to control, etc, etc, which probs does involve them getting married (and not killing each other lol) to show her escaping that Eva and Madoc dichotomy

[dandelionjack]

re: the post below. fantasy vs reality

a discussion in the notes got me thinking about the recent trend (perhaps not the right word, maybe “tendency”) of communist/marxist bloggers on here, especially those concerned with decolonisation (as we all should be), to blanket-condemn all media which “romanticises” pirates, cowboys, knights, outlaws, and other “historical” (in quotes because, let’s be real, it’s more legend than history when we talk about the modern portrayal of these lifestyles) morally dubious yet immensely alluring occupations. there’s been this discourse spreading: the idea that somehow indulging in art which presents these figures in a generally positive or fun light is the same as being uncritical of manifest-destiny expansionism (i.e. the notion of the ‘wild west’ and an ‘untamed frontier’ is colonial), christian imperialism (since knights participated in the crusades) or even an apologist of the slave trade (because some pirates engaged in it).

to which i say, plainly, bollocks. if you’re 16 or younger, your critical thinking faculties are an untrained muscle, your media analysis capacity not yet switched-on, then yeah, you’re allowed to be susceptible to the inability to distinguish between what’s cool in fiction and what’s permissible in reality. any older than that, i start getting doubts. i question the frankly patronising notion that an adult with a basic understanding of history and politics is incapable of recognising when something fictional doesn’t map one-on-one onto the modern world, whether that be the mechanics of a story, the interactions between characters, the beliefs and goals which drive them, or the social mores and cultural norms (hierarchy of gender, race, nobility etc) which they accept as fact.

you should be able to hold (more than) two truths in your head simultaneously. you should be able to cheer when the knight pulls the sword from the stone and reclaims his long-denied royal heritage to become a well earned leader, and, at the same time, recognise that we live in the 21st century where monarchy is a long-obsolete, unjust and inhumane system of government. same as you’d readily accept that somebody in a novel can cast a spell, but you wouldn’t believe that a real guy could set a tree alight with his mind.

all fiction is fantasy because we don’t live in history. yeah, we have sources, but they’re not perfect. even the author attempting to be as accurate as possible will inevitably sneak in some tiny anachronisms, even if in language alone. medieval europe didn’t have potatoes. you will find potato stew boiling in every tavern in the fantasy pseudo-german towns your protagonists take a rest stop in. that’s fine. that’s normal. pirates in reality were mostly cruel hardened criminals with no respect for human life, which is why they gladly partook in slavery as well as pillaging and looting, anything for profit. pirates in a show can be kind, considerate, a rag-tag team of outcasts and freedom fighters with views that most correspond with modern anarchism. as long as you know the difference, as long as you’re not pretending that this fantasy is how historical events actually happened, it’s fine. you’re good. go watch your bridgertons.

make sure to stay prudent and always tell the difference, though. never ever fall into the trap of wanting to ‘retvrn’, and that goes towards ever cottagecore homesteader. let fiction remain fiction, and work to better the world.

[asparklethatisblue]

I asked my dad who is an ex catholic priest and has a degree in theology about whether Christianity was fucked by becoming Rome's religion way back when and it's complicated but the short answer is yes. The second you had politics and kings mixed in with the shit it became a deadly poison for anything else.

Oh thank you! I both don’t know enough about Christianity and am not Christian so I didn’t want to cause offence. But so MUCH of early medieval christianity and so on is based on “the Romans were cool and we must be like them”? Both in politics and in religion. You can’t suddenly tie control of half a continent to a religion and expect it to be normal either. Especially not based on the culture of Rome

[ndiebrioxhe]

Another Rambling post about Ascendance of a Bookworm:

BLUE - ORANGE MORALITY

(with minor digs at Harry Potter)

When I was younger I used to browse Tv Tropes and I really enjoyed looking at them describe things I noticed in media but didn’t have a name for. On a rare occasion, I would find a trope that I had no real reference for and one of those was “blue-orange morality”.

The concept of having a morality system completely divorced from our own that we can’t really judge it. Now it’s not like I have never seen like a series or text attempt to create a character or species that has different standards of morality but the issue I always had was, that the supposed “different moral standards” were always included as a contrast to a more recognisable real world standard - which meant it was framed from a real world standard anyways.

It is always seemed like one of two scenarios:

Scenario A:

Alien/Monster/Non-human: “Here is our horrifically barbaric practice that has no functional purpose to our society and entirely superstitious!”

Human/Humanoid 1: “That’s bad”

Human/Humanoid 2: “Oh that’s just their culture”

And its like no… the narrative framing still shows that is weird and barbaric and not at all a foreign concept which is it’s own morality system so divorced from our own. If we have to be advised not to judge it on our own standards, it can be judged by our standards.

Scenario B:

Olden Times!

Stories being set in a distant past/medieval times where there are different moral standards is not true blue-orange morality. They are just the worse models of current moral standards. We are not divorced from those at all. They are just uncomfortable to think about. Like, yes it is fucked for dudes to claim to be kings and murder thousands to maintain their power… but people weren’t super cool with massmurder back then either - it was just an inevitability due to the social economical problems. It’s like being a billionaire with hundreds of sweatshops now. Even with people who are cool with the system - we all know that shit isn’t our “moral standard” - it’s our uncomfortable reality. Pushing the setting back or forward a 1000 years doesn’t really change anything. Our countries’ leaders still go off to kill and exploit people to maintain power, they just don’t get crowns for it anymore.

And I don’t care if you chose to do this with fictional races and places, that is just set dressing. They still resemble human society as we know it.

So I just never really saw a series that really grabbed me as authentically blue-orange… just typically shades of grey.

But then I read AOAB… and I really saw the potential of blue-orange morality. And it was done well.

Now it might seem logical to treat Bookworm as a Scenario B.

After all, it’s literally nobles presiding over commonfolk and elizabethan era political drama… but heres the thing… the framing of Scenario B is based on understanding that some characters still fit our present mold of a good person:

caring

considerate

fair

just

humble

attractive (no literally)

would not murder babies

religious in the right way

And these characters are the ones we root for. The characters we aren’t rooting have qualities we do not desire

mean

selfish

powerhungry

bloodthirsty

unattractive

will murder babies

over zealous or cult-like

Like in a Scenario B you can’t show the main characters enslave children in a sweatshop and allow grown adult attendants put their hands on them - and still be the good guy. You can’t plan the purging of an entire faction and hold their children hostage under penalty of death - and be THE GOOD GUY . Can’t overtly tax a city to the bones and deny them the best possible harvest because the previous mayor annoyed YOU — AND EVER HOPE TO BE THE GOOD GUY.

Well you can in ascendance of a bookworm tho.

And the readers will agree with you.

And it’s NOT because readers can overly moralise the actions of main characters.

And it’s because unlike a Scenarios A and B which are just OUR WORLD where we are all AWARE that we don’t really need kings or billionaires and antiquated traditions that rely on human suffering for the world to work. AOAB is different

The world of AOAB is not our own. Nobles have more rights because the world explicitly requires their mana to function. Nobles are human plus. They are what rich people in the regular world pretend to be.

Remove the army, the wealth, the status of a king and he is commoner. AOAB Nobles are literally magic batteries that build cities, make harvests happen, keep the population safe from deadly magical creatures …like the yearly giant blizzard monster that won’t literally won’t let spring come unless you have an army of trained magical knights slay it. Without Nobles the world literally be a giant sandpit.

So right of the bat, the nobility are integral to society. You simply don’t live your life raised as a necessary part of the world functioning and not have a social structure that reflects that. Its our world turned on it’s head. All the commoners could die and all that means is the nobles have to do more work. Instead of rich needing the poor, the commoners need the nobles. Otherwise they rarely even interact. The commoners and nobles are almost different species.

And not like it’s particularly unfair on the commoners. Not having mana simply bars you from a lot of activities, duties and experiences. Hell, not having a lot of mana as someone born into a noble family arguably sucks more than being a commoner. Nobility is earned, not given. Being born into a noble family that doesn’t have the means to regulate your mana means you won’t even make it to age where you are considered a separate entity from your parents in that society. If you have enough mana to make it to the Royal Academy without getting sent to the temple and the ability to pass or even excel at the Royal Academy - congrats you are now an asset to your duchy and that includes the commoners inside it. Just make sure you don’t blunder and cause your own execution.

So if murder, classism, deception and greed aren’t necessarily immoral in AOAB, what is?

The only real way to be a labeled a bad person in AOAB noble society is to endanger your duchy and cause widespread problems. Which only means the real way to be immoral in AOAB is to be incompetent or to FAIL.

You might initially think The Veronica-Georgine faction are the antagonists because they try to murder a barely baptised child but the guardian trio literally admitted they had plans to kill her too. They are ones committing the most one sided mass murders in the series. Ferdinand being able to outmanoeuvre and manipulate his enemies in the ring of politics is considered a SEXY TRAIT.

So what’s the difference between the Florencia faction and the Veronica-Georgine faction? Easy. The V-G faction is DESTABILISING AN ENTIRE DUCHY WITH SHORTSIGHTED NOBLE BULLSHIT. And just escalates into the entire nation being in jeopardy… because the Ahrensbachian Archducal family keeps producing nobles that are profoundly worthless with no sense of noble duty. They are defective.

In the next paragraph, I’m just going to state something this legion of defective nobles did and the names of who did it/involved.

They don’t respect the authority or wisdom of nobles of higher rank so they disobey orders (Bezewanst, Veronica). They force already new brides on married nobles that ruin established marriages for no benefit besides sating their schoolyard fantasies on a whim (Gabriele). Their spitefulness and cruelty to one of the biggest archnoble families in the duchy has made the Ehnferestian faction politics a disaster (Veronica) and were forced to create an entire section of mednobles not even loyal to Ehnferest because archnobles rightfully disliked them (Shikikoza and Gloria). They’re such suck ups it endangered their own duchy’s stability to the point where their only options is an intermediate archducal candidate that was poorly raised by all metrics (Gieselfried). Ahrensbach archducal children are regularly raised to be puppeteered by the parents instead of independent thinkers (Detlinde). Which is a real fucking problem for duchies when you keep trying (and typically succeeding) in making these children the Aubs of duchies (Georgine).

Ultimately it comes down to the fact they believe in their ideological RIGHT as nobles over their ideological DUTY to prioritise their duchies running smoothly. And that leads them to overestimate their APTITUDE as nobles.

Which is REALLY telling when a little powerhouse is redefining what it means to be an accomplished noble and entire political career is to the benefit of Ehnferest. Which is why the Ehnferest archducal family and Florencia faction who prioritise the stability and growth of the own goddam duchy instead of their own personal grudges are the good guys.

Bad guys are bad because they are bad what they are supposed to be doing and the good guys are good because they focused on what they should be.

There’s even a moral gray zone which is “trying your best but not being enough” and the prime example of that is the current the royal family. The country is only in this sorry state because one prince allowed his ineptitude and thirst for power to spiral and cause the nation lose the most important tool, and now it has a king that was only ever raised as a vassal is struggling (impressively) to keep a nation that should have dried up to keep running… A shame his intel gathering is dogshit so he keeps making mistakes and even overlook things that could have solved the problem.

So the dynamic of magic and morality is baked in the worldbuilding and it’s doesn’t feel dumb that nobles have all this power but somehow DON’T really interfere the non magical inhabitants in the world on a grand scale. These features, not flaws.

It is so much better than making a magical world where wizards hide their shit IN non magical places but don’t interact with non magical humans and have poverty and slaves that do house chores despite HAVING MAGIC that handles that shit. And also celebrate non magical people’s holidays despite thinking non magical people are beneath them because despite the book apparently being about fascism being bad - it doesn’t address any of the core issues of it and even has extra issues layered on top!

AOAB doesn’t operate on regular morality so it’s not mind numbingly incongruent when bad things happen in the universe because the magic people choose to let it happen despite thinking it’s bad. Even tho nobles do not care about the commonfolk it would stupid if they hid magic from the non magical folk and even dumber if entire spinoffs were based in fighting to keep it secret. Having a series where the protagonists realise that a faction in their world is a problem and getting RID OF THEM? Imagine getting rid of people who are the problem instead of fighting them in a WAR and reading checking the epilogue and that faction caused the fascism is STILL THERE and children are scared to end up there?? WHY DOES SLYTHERIN STILL EXIST—

Anyways,,,

I haven’t had the pleasure of reading past the translated pre-pub myself, but from what I do know is the Ahrensbachian penchant for stupidity and shortsightedness in the pursuit of positions of power they couldn’t hope to manage effectively… while destabilising as much of the nation as possible continues and I can’t wait to read it.

[junpeininj4]

So I started medieval stage combat a few weeks ago, after a friend dragged me to a show at the local renaissance faire And we started talking to the group doing the fencing, and what was I supposed to do, NOT fight them? 

And now I’m part of the crew. 

It opened this big can of worms, because part of it all is to look at least somewhat historical accurate, and when I asked how to best approach this whole reenactment thing, they said something terrible. “Just imagine someone who actually lived back then, and try to translate what that would mean for your kit.”

Oh.

Brother.

You can’t TELL me shit like that.

So now I am supposed to write FanFic about the real world, which it turns out is rather dense in regards to the lore, and my hyperfocus for small, niche, minute little things is trying to comprehend A THOUSAND YEARS OF HISTORY AND SOCIAL POLITICS IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE!

A Europe, by the way, that wasn’t quite as streamlined and culturally united as it is today, AND IT IS NOT, but a Europe where Germany was not even a thing, instead being seven Kingdoms in a trenchcoat larping as Imperial Rome. While being mostly ruling over territory that was never touched by Rome, because we killed them when they tried. 

And now I have this guy called Ulfrick, who is living somewhere in the county of Holstein-Pinneberg, works as a bodyguard for a merchant of the Hanseatic League, is secretly gay, and… enjoys music I don’t know the sound of. Eats food that is unfamiliar to me. I don’t know where he gets his clothes from, or his weapons, and which weapons that would be. What he would do for fun, in which currency he would pay for that. Which parts of the world he would know about, or would be able to travel to. How he would look at the world.

Because I am strange when it comes to the characters I invent, I feel like I owe him to find out. 

And that is… beautiful, and intimidating. It feels like eating an elephant, but it also feels like unearthing more and more little details about a new-found friend.

I guess it’s time to become an expert in medieval history.

Let’s go.

[jeannereames]

weird question but what do you think Alexander would’ve thought of Machiavellian philosophy toward ruling? i feel like he employed some aspects of it throughout his life / career

A Machiavellian Alexander?

Because he didn’t write anything on the topic (that survives), it’s hard to know what Alexander’s theories on kingship/rule were, although I suspect he had theories, having been a student of Aristotle. Yet if some of the anecdotes about his days as a student can be believed, he resisted letting theory eat pragmatics—frustrating his teacher. (Although his teacher was more pragmatic than his teacher, Plato.) He purported to believe in what we might call “situational decision making.” As his time as the buck-stops person increased, he grew even more creative and less wedded to theoretical scaffolding. There was a lot of throwing ideas against a wall to see what stuck.

Although The Prince is Machiavelli’s best-known work, it’s actually atypical of his other writings. Dedicated to Lorenzo de’Medici, it was intended to teach rulers how to maintain power successfully. As such, it’s amoral (rather than immoral). A practical guide that divorced philosophic ethics from political theory. (To what degree he really believed it himself is, I understand, a point of contention.)

The Prince is the opposite of Plato—or Aristotle, for that matter. Rulers had been utilizing many of the ideas Machiavelli suggested, but nobody writing about politics advised them. Philosophers and political theorists had been trying to teach kings, tyrants, emperors, and other rulers to exercise power in moral ways, not amoral ones: Neo-Pythagorean idealized societies or Plato and his “philosopher king.” Stoics later went in one direction, Epicureans in another, and Neoplatonists in yet another, etc. That pattern would continue down into the medieval world. Until Machiavelli. (And even after him.)

To theorists, politics should be bound up with ethical thinking in order to create the best, most just society.

That’s the tradition Alexander was raised in, so I think he’d have been somewhere between offended and impressed by The Prince. He’d recognize the soundness of the advice, while being astonished anybody would set it down AS advice to be followed. I think he’d regard it as “last-ditch policy,” certainly when younger. Age and experience sanded down the idealism, but I don’t think it ever entirely sanded it off.

It’s hard to know just how devoted to philosophy Alexader actually was. This owes to the narrative programs inserted by later writers. For instance, Plutarch wanted to portray him as a “philosopher in armor.” I think most serious Alexander scholars these days dismiss that as a fictional portrait that served Plutarch’s moralizing and elevation of Hellenic culture during the Roman imperial period. But how much did the historical Alexander pursue philosophy? And did he do so for personal reasons (preference), or as a “show” to impress the Greeks (and is that division an artificial one, in itself)?

Some scholars, including Ernst Badian, Ian Worthington, and Peter Green would, I believe argue that he was pragmatic with little patience for philosophy unless it served his purposes: e.g., very The Prince-like. Others, including N.G.L. Hammond and Robin Lane Fox would rather see him in more Plutarchian terms. Yet others, such as Sabine Müller and Yossi Roismann, would regard him as a gifted statesman and diplomat, but not somebody marching around with his head in the clouds. I probably come closer to that latter view.

Yet I do think we need to take more seriously than we sometimes do the fact that he was Aristotle’s student. If he did not adopt some of Aristotle’s specific views on, say, non-Greeks, he would still have been a different sort of (Macedonian) king as a result of his education, probably more inclined to think about what he was doing in terms of political theory. If you wanted to put it in modern terms, we might regard him as a “first-generation college student.” Ha. And an enthusiastic one, not simply someone there to get a degree in pursuit of a higher-paying job. By all accounts, he appears to have been a deep-thinker—as was his father, albeit without the formal training. Philip worked out a lot of things about successful rule on his own…then made sure his son was given the proper educational scaffolding to make him even better at it.

So, while we may not have a good idea of Alexander’s personal political philosophies, and if—as he aged—he appears to have grown more cynical, I think it would be a mistake to see him as intentionally amoral in approach. He wanted to be, and saw himself as, a “good” (i.e., just) king. When he did “bad” (immoral or cruel) things, he would have blamed situational necessity.

In that, he’s like most people. By-in-large, when the average person behaves badly, they don’t see themselves as “bad” people, but as people who want to be good stuck between a rock and a hard place. “The devil/[circumstance] made me do it.” Alexander was no different.

[jurassicworldtieindrpepper]

Reading List

to be updated constantly

Articles:

"Why Women Online Can’t Stop Reading Fairy Porn" by C.T. Jones for Rolling Stone

"They Called 911 for Help. Police and Prosecutors Used a New Junk Science to Decide They Were Liars." by Brett Murphy for ProPublica

"‘I Think My Husband Is Trashing My Novel on Goodreads!’" by Emily Gould for The Cut

"Woman in Retrograde" by Isabel Cristo for The Cut

"The unwanted Spanish soccer kiss is textbook male chauvinism. Don’t excuse it" by Moira Donegan for the Guardian

"I Started the Media Men List" by Moira Donegan for The Cut

"What Moira Donegan Did for Young Women Writers" by Jordana Rosenfeld for The Nation

"The Key Detail Missing From the Narrative About O.J. and Race" by Joel Anderson for Slate

"The Coiled Ferocity of Zendaya" by Matt Zoller Seitz for Vulture

"OJ Simpson died the comfortable death in old age that Nicole Brown should have had" by Moira Donegan for The Guardian

"Norm Macdonald Was the Hater O.J. Simpson Could Never Outrun" by Miles Klee for Rolling Stone

"Trans Stylists and Makeup Artists Are Reshaping Red Carpet Looks. Will They Get the Credit They’re Due?" by James Factora

"The ‘perfect Aryan’ child used in Nazi propaganda was actually Jewish" by Terrence McCoy for The Washington Post

"There Are Too Many Books; Or, Publishing Shouldn’t Be All About Quantity" by Maris Kreizman for Literary Hub

"An O.J. Juror on What The People v. O.J. Simpson Got Right and Wrong" by Ashley Reese for Vulture

"Super Cute Please Like" by Nicole Lipman for N + 1 Magazine

Essays:

Not That Bad: Dispatches from Rape Culture edited by Roxanne Gay

Creep: Accusations and Confessions by Myriam Gurba

"On Chappell Roan and Gen Z Pop" by Miranda Reinert

"In Memory of Nicole Brown Simpson" by Andrea Dworkin

"My Gender Is Dyke" by Alexandria Juarez for Autostraddle

"Columnists and Their Lives of Quiet Desperation" by Hamilton Nolan

Nonfiction:

Belabored: A Vindication of the Rights of Pregnant Women by Lyz Lenz

The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan

This American Ex-Wife: How I Ended My Marriage and Started My Life by Lyz Lenz

The Gentrification of the Mind: Witness to a Lost Imagination by Sarah Schulman

Savage Appetites: Four True Stories of Women, Crime, and Obsession by Rachel Monroe

The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory by Carol J. Adams

Eros the Bittersweet by Anne Carson

Who Owns This Sentence? A History of Copyrights and Wrongs by David Bellos & Alexandre Montagu

The Once and Future Sex: Going Medieval on Women's Roles in Society by Eleanor Janega

Moby Dyke: An Obsessive Quest to Track Down the Last Remaining Lesbian Bars in America by Krista Burton

University of Nike: How Corporate Cash Bought American Higher Education by Joshua Hunt

What it Feels Like for a Girl by Paris Lees

Female Masculinity by J. Jack Halberstam

The Theory of Everything Else: A Voyage Into the World of the Weird by Dan Schreiber

Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers by Mary Roach

Better Living Through Birding: Notes from a Black Man in the Natural World by Christian Cooper

Rivermouth: A Chronicle of Language, Faith, and Migration by Alejandra Oliva

Unlikeable Female Characters: The Women Pop Culture Wants You to Hate by Anna Bogutskaya

Born a Crime: Stories From a South African Childhood by Trevor Noah

Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson

The Lady from the Black Lagoon: Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick by Mallory O'Meara

Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End by Atul Gawande

Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg

Eyeliner: A Cultural History by Zahra Hankir

Against Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement by Ashley Shew

The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder by David Grann

Know My Name by Chanel Miller

Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty by Patrick Radden Keefe

Novelist as a Vocation by Haruki Murakami

Rape-Revenge Films: A Critical Study by Alexandra Heller-Nicholas

Fiction:

To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf

Middlemarch by George Eliot

Just as You Are by Camille Kellogg

Just Happy to Be Here by Naomi Kanakia

The Misadventures of an Amateur Naturalist by Ceinwen Langley

Family Meal by Bryan Washington

Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton

The Mountain in the Sea by Ray Nayler

Ring Shout by P. Djèlí Clark

My Heart Is a Chainsaw by Stephen Graham Jones

An Island Princess Starts a Scandal by Adriana Herrera

Blackouts by Justin Torres

We Do What We Do in the Dark by Michelle Hart

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

Less Is Lost by Andrew Sean Greer

The Faithless by C.L. Clark

Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir

The Poppy War by R.F. Kuang

The Disenchantments by Nina LaCour

Everything Leads to You by Nina LaCour

Bliss Montage by Ling Ma

Pachinko by Min Jin Lee

The Institute by Stephen King

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke

Frankenstein: Junji Ito Story Collection by Junji Ito

Her Body and Other Parties: Stories by Carmen Maria Machado

Young Mungo by Douglas Stuart

The Dark Forest by Liu Cixin

Snuff by Terry Pratchett

Travelers Along the Way: A Robin Hood Remix by Aminah Mae Safi

Only a Monster by Vanessa Len

[ilbenmalpensanteus]

I think I cannot hold myself back anymore, so I will say it.

The fact that Sasuke and Naruto decide to marry two stereotypical, canonical, a-characterized girls is not a sign of a necessarily brotherly (merely platonic) bond.

In the medieval Japanese culture, in fact, true love often could be found only between two man (‘cause they are similar creatures and they can understand each other better than man/women couples - yeah, I know, how sexist, but we are talking about the 13th century sooo). It is possible to recognise the same idea in the antique Greece (even if usually the relationship is between teacher and his student - but the concept is, more or less, the same - you can see Platon about it). Marriage is a tool to grant reproduction and connection (Sasuke’s idea about “I want to repopulate the clan”, -yeah, alone and far away from home for 12 fucking years (r’u okay, dude?) Naruto dream of becoming hokage - never at home after:

-Hashirama that went for a walk everyday with his bff

-his brother who spent more time masturbating on proibite jutsu than actually ruling

-the third that, like the first, went for a walk but with Naruto instead

-the fourth: a loveable father and husband that had dinner at home with her wife and cooked as well

-tsunade: alcoholic, gambler, one of the sannins AND medic nin

-kakashi… well, you all know about his addiction for porn

-NARUTO: orphan, love-starved for life, can’t find the force to stay at home, shitty dad ecc ecc in time of peace.

Buuut oookkkkaaaayy?!).

Many aspects of Kishi’s plot and characters are inspired by historical Samurai’ customs and figures (also, the ninja world’ structure described by Kishi is more similiar to Samurai’ than that’s of true ninjas - whose usually are mercenaries and more similiar to bandits than heroes).

ALSO, who knows something, even if only the basics, about literature, can easily read in the entire story the most important iconographic topoi of romance and LOVE.

I will summarize some of them because there are many:

-Romeo and Juliet: “I’m the only one who can bear the full brunt of your hate! It’s my job, no one else’s! I’ll bear the burden of your hatred… And we’ll die together!”. Then, summarising the rest: “in the afterlife I will not be the vessil anymore; you will not be an uchiha ecc ecc”= Capuleti and Montecchi: Juliet and Romeo tried to bear the hatred that their families had for each other; finally only death permits them to love and realise their dream to stay in each other arms.

-in their afterlife (pre-mortem experience) Sasuke and Naruto are found together (no itachi, no parents - only the two of them)

-Achille and Patroclo (I think I won’t speak about that because I could spend VOLUMES)

-the love triangle

-star-watching while whispering the name of smone we love (or desire)

Anyway I have no watched Boruto and I don’t intend to: everything after the second Valley of End is no more than “found raising” (without charity) and politically correct (that of 15 years ago - especially in Eastern Countries). Same thing about The Last and these other craps: BULLSHIT: Naruto, suddenly, DON’T understand love anymore… came on, are u serious man?

PS when I think about chakras of two siblings I cannot not think about soulmates:

- chakra, like soul, have NO gender (and we all know that Naruto and Sasuke are not brother)

-if you insist about they being siblings thanks Indra’ and Asura’ chakras I have to remind you that VERY OFTEN in EVERY MYTHOLOGIES of the world (yeah, in Japan as well) between deities there is no incest concept and ooops Indra and Asura WERE SEMI-DEITIES, so..

I would thank my current occupation as phd student in History and Religion: that has helped a lot to understand the implicit tune of the show/manga

PSS the shit about “clingy Sakura yelp cause sasuke taps her forehead” is, precisely, bullshit: Itachi (sasuke’s real brother) did the same thing to keep away sasuke. When he says “I will always love you” he doesn’t do that, no SIR; also, when sasuke asks Naruto what he really means by “friend”, Naruto, at the very end says “I DON’T FUNCKIN KNOW, but when you hurt I hurt”. He is the one that really understands Sasuke NOT SAKURA

Also, Naruto frees Kurama (8 tails) after Hinata’s (fake) death, okay but, seriously? The seal is merely there at this point, everyone is dead, she tried to help him but cannot do it because is not a real ninja and he got LIVID. I understand that.. than he forget all that she had said

When the kages asks for sasuke elimination, Naruto is not angry, Naruto is broken and has a real panic attack, so… I think there are some difference due the circumstances.

The hints ‘bout canonical ships during the series are, really, unuseful like an ass with no hole.

So, I have to stop here. This is my deposition, your honor.

Sorry if I made mistakes but it’s late here, I’m tired and English is not my native language

[gemsofgreece]

any pronunciation tips when pronouncing greek names? any common errors i should avoid? trying to impress a very important greek teacher in an interview and hoping to convince them that im competent enough to start studying the language! any other general tips would be super appreciated hahah x

You didn’t tell me what kind of studies it is (classical studies, modern studies, just linguistics, generally Greek culture and history studies) to be more precise but I believe I can give some tips anyway!

Use modern Greek pronunciation for any instance of speaking Greek to them, including addressing them. Even if you go for classical studies, outside the classroom you should use modern pronunciation to earn their attention.

If you are going to speak any basic Greek with them, you should definitely apply plural of politeness. Greet them with a “Ya sas” or a “Hérete” or a “Kaliméra sas” if it’s morning or “Kalispéra sas” if it’s afternoon. Always with plural of politeness. In the language that you are going to do most of the talk, use please and thank you and all forms of polite talk when it’s necessary within the context. These things are valued in Greek academic communication.

Address them with the word κύριος / κυρία + their surname. Kírie + Surname, if it’s a man, Kiría + Surname, if it’s a woman. You don’t have to address them after every answer or anything, just in the beginning and whenever it feels like it makes sense to do it. And plural of politeness. Please note that they may not apply plural of politeness to you, they may not call you mr or mrs and they might call you with your first name. All this is totally normal in Greek dialogue etiquette, you are the student, the younger person, and they can address you informally. THIS DOES NOT MEAN you can drop the plural of politeness. No matter how they talk to you (I mean unless they would insult you or something LOL) you have to use the plural. You can drop it ONLY if they explicitly tell you to do so which I doubt they will but anyway. And even if you drop the plural, you will still address them Kírie / Kiría + Surname unless they also tell you to call them by their first name which I also doubt and then you will STILL have to address them as Kírie / Kiría + First Name. Don’t drop the Kírie / Kiría under any circumstances. Unless they also tell you specifically to do that but the chances are very very slim.

Go in there with a pleasant but serious demeanour, you know, like in a typical interview. Depending on how they are, you can follow along their demeanour but always be one step more reserved. So if they are serious, you stay serious. If they are relaxed and humorous, you can loosen up as well but do remain a little more serious than them.

If they take note of you speaking Greek (regardless of how well or bad you do), you can smile reservedly and be like “Yes I am trying, I am really hoping / looking forward to learn more / improve”. But don’t make light of it, like “hehehe I am speaking Greek… opaaaa!” . Show you are interested in it seriously, academically.

I am pretty sure the professor will value much more your genuine interest to study the Greek language or culture, rather than any technical mistakes you might make. Show a contained mix of fascination and focus to them and you will win them over, I am sure! But don’t go in there like “idk the alphabet looked cool” XD

You can of course add how it might be very aesthetically appealing to you or having some practical significance for you to learn the language. But keep this supplemental and focus on scientific fascination and Greek’s academic / cultural impact.

I think I got the ultimate trick to impress them. Whatever they ask you about why you want to take these studies, push modern Greek culture in your answer or, even better, talk about how it fascinates you to explore the continuation or evolution of Greek culture / language / history through ancient, medieval and modern times. Talk about the special case of Greek being so well attested, giving us a window to explore cultural evolution in big spans of time with more precision. If these are modern Greek studies, definitely do not talk about how you love Greek mythology or ancient philosophy. I mean, it’s not bad to say that, it just won’t make the difference you hope for to the professor. Show that you value all eras of Greek history / linguistics and if it’s modern studies, then do emphasise on the modern era and maybe talk about exploring the impact of Byzantine / medieval in modern history and literature and culture. Maybe talk about how perhaps you were exposed to Modern Greek history and culture and realised how overlooked / under appreciated it is and how, I don’t know, it could prove to be impactful in certain ways. I mean, use the one of these that applies best to you and work around your answer, I am just giving you some ideas! But the point is, don’t focus on classical Greece or Greek mythology. Express an interest for the civilisation / linguistics throughout time, talk about exploring continuation, evolution and impact and I believe you got them :)

To summarise, be serious, focused and pleasant. Show respect and interest in all Greek linguistics / culture / history without discrimination. Talk about continuation. If they ask you if you have some niche interest about it, definitely choose something less known, more overlooked like something from medieval or modern times. Don’t stress over potential mistakes you might make. Use polite language.

And success is imminent 😁

Καλή επιτυχία!

[horizon-verizon]

Rhaenyra's children have never been legitimised. Even though the king has claimed them as his grandchildren, even though corlys claimed them as velaryons. And even though laenor claimed them as his children. Even though they were claimed in front of multiple witnesses including the entire court, they’re still not legitimised. because they were never acknowledged as bastards in the first place. They have always been claimed as 'true born' children, not as bastards, and of course you can’t legitimise a true born child.

This better be about Fire and Blood, anon. I’m working from the assumption that it is.

I get your point, anon. I’ve both heard it and debated about it myself many times.

You're saying that even though Viserys and Corlys accepted them, by the rules of legitimization and acknowledgment they are and always will be bastards and illegitimate. People would have to have the official revelation for Viserys to publicly legitimize them.

My thing is that:

in real life, what determined a child’s legitimacy in Europe was nebulous right from the start and had to do with property and changed according to the needs of the people involved. In Wales–before the Norman conquest of it and its incorporation into “England” around 1093–had “bastard” meaning a child whose father doesn’t acknowledge them. All children acknowledged had equal legal rights. That included the right to share in the father’s inheritance. The real-life House of Tudor, Elizabeth I’s house, was a house that ruled England after Henry VII took the throne through conquest and after presenting himself as a candidate to those opposed to the Plantagenet York House. The Tudors weren’t a “big” house compared to these houses. And yet it produced notable people…. including Elizabeth I. William the Conqueror was not mocked for having unmarried parents, but specifically for his mother not having a good or illustrious lineage.

In Westeros, riverman Benedict Rivers/Justman/”the Bold” and Orys Baratheon (last one rumored bastard) loyally or dedicatedly lead armies for other lords or lead loyal soldiers themselves, completely negating the idea that bastards are inherently “monstrous” or “treacherous”, which is the bulk of disdain and trepidation for illegitimate people. Benedict Rivers, a bastard born from a Blackwood and a Bracken, became a King over all the riverlords and lead the riverlords into years of prosperity and peace. Orys founded the very house that currently rules Westeros (the irony is not lost on me, but that’s because Robert himself is a fucker and patriarchy).

illegitimacy doesn’t exist as a reality and an independent fact without political context; it must be actively enforced by the active decision of the people around to have any actual true effect

Rhaenyra, as a woman giving birth to children not her husbands’, would be getting a stronger even maybe deadly punishment for something that a man would get off scot free for, and her kids -- through no fault of their own -- would also have their lives taken or ruined. And for what? Something that has no real substance in of itself and is more conviently hidden for power if done right? [go to point #4] -- the further political and personal ramifications are is why the V boys’ parentage will never be admitted....just as her adultery would never be admitted (we don’t know if Book!Rhaneyra did the arrangement with Laenor of HotD)

both women and men have had affairs and lovers for millenia in ancient and medieval cultures....why? Because marriage is about resources and joining families together for power/security, not love or intimacy. And both men and women want love and/or real intimacy, or just horny. This means that there is a higher possibility for there to be "unexposed" "illegitimate" children on either side than you might think or have clear archealogical or otherwise historical evidence for. 

Sometimes affairs and illegitimate kids were tacitly and publicly known already ( @the-king-andthe-lionheart), but if a person were to want to gain something from a princess', noble lady's, queen’s reputation falling or outright removal...then whether or not she actually cheated on her husband or slept with others, they could engineer claims of her “ruination” and “treason” 

Jon Snow. Enough said.

Power is the thing that is really sought for, not moral righteousness. Alicent & Criston both are so out of the loop for this. Bastardy is a societal excuse and invention. It is a tool to be used, to flaunt, to slice others, to hide, etc. How you use it and for what purpose determines your ethical status. Add in circumstance and that will determine whether you will “win” or not.

EDIT: As what la-pheacienne says HERE, Viserys I, Corlys, and Laenor all tacitly/silently accepting Rhaenyra's sons is legally valid, as it is in all legal contexts, so yes they are all legitimate.

Aside from how Viserys and Corlys both voluntarily decide so, never revealing anything.