#important caveat: this was from wikipedia | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

everythingsinred · 1 year ago

Text

Natsume is a Leftie

I am BACK with another important research post.

At the end of the day, I am a scholar and an academic and I must go out of my way to closely research and study in my field (Natsume). Today it is time, after gathering my evidence, to establish my thesis on Natsume being a leftie.

(I gathered evidence in the background of gathering evidence for ANOTHER post about Natsume being a cat, so this isn't exhaustive, just strongly suggestive. Except that I'm right. So.)

Alright we'll start with a caveat! Higuchi Tachibana is a human being and makes many mistakes while drawing (draws buttons on wrong side sometimes, drew Natsume wearing the elementary uniform when he was supposed to be wearing the middle school uniform, drew Ruka in the girl uniform, etc.) so there ARE times when Natsume is using his right hand to do things he should be using his left hand for OR that other characters who are usually right-handed are seen using their left hand.

Take this image, simultaneously an example of Natsume being a leftie but also depicting Ruka, who (as far as I can tell from other evidence) is right-handed, as left-handed too. There are inconsistencies! But I am basing this off of the overwhelming amount of evidence the manga provides.

And! While I did focus on Natsume's handedness for this post, I did periodically check other characters' eating and writing and alice use (if applicable, since not everyone's alice works like Natsume) and the above image of Ruka feels like an exception rather than a rule. Most people are righthanded and most of the characters seem righthanded.

Mikan is a rightie and Chapter 27 is full of her writing with her right hand. You can see her eating with her right hand in other chapters and primarily using her right hand in other scenes throughout the manga.

We see most characters here eating with their right hands with the exception of Natsume and Mikan, who have their hands down and aren't eating. Hotaru handles weaponry primarily with her right hand and eats with her right hand. She also uses wrenches and other tools with her right hand. Koko and Iinchou and Permy all seem like righties from what I can tell.

Dainty Ruka-pyon uses his right hand to eat! It's kinda hard to track with him, honestly. There's not a lot of instances of him writing or eating, so who's to say. He might very well be right-handed as evidenced by this evidence with his fork (and there's another one on the same page) or maybe he's left-handed as evidenced by the above writing picture with Natsume. He's usually holding an animal (typically Usagi), so it's hard to tell sometimes if he's using a certain hand because it's his dominant or because it's the hand that's not busy holding an animal. Maybe he's ambidextrous! Who knows!

Anyway! About Natsume...

Let's begin with what exactly handedness is. Wikipedia says it's "an individual's preferential use of one hand, known as the dominant hand, due to it being stronger, faster or more dextrous" with the other hand usually being less so. Thus, for complex actions that require precision and control will be carried out with the dominant hand. You'll defer to your dominant side most times and it tends to be subconscious. So for both absent movements and precision-requiring movements, you will probably default to your dominant hand. Our muscle memory and precision is usually significantly more developed in our dominant hand. Handedness is usually determined by observing the hand people use to write or eat with. This post will also feature heavily that Natsume predominantly uses his left hand to use his alice.

10% of the population is left-handed and most of society was built to cater to right-handed individuals. In Japan in particular, children are sometimes still forced to write with their right hand because of the way writing kanji works. Previously, throughout history, people have assumed that left-handedness was a sign of the devil. People have also historically correlated left-handedness with mental illness and have encouraged forcing leftie children to use their right hand (though this practice often resulted in children having self-esteem issues and speech impediments, which probably means the lefties have higher rates of mental illness because of how they've been treated rather than some innate issue).

Thus pages like this, where he's using his right hand to use the water fountain, are because they are designed for right-handed people, thus are not evidence that he's not left-handed, if that makes sense.

Alright here's the evidence for him being a leftie!

This is my most consistent evidence. Most people with alices don't have a manifested thing to keep in their hands like Natsume does to showcase this, really, so he's kinda unique in this way, but most of the time that I've been able to notice, he's primarily using his left hand to summon his fire. This is pretty consistent until we get to later chapters when his battles are much grander and he summons much larger flames that surround him rather than manifesting in one hand or the other.

I mean. This is pretty solid evidence that he's a leftie. Medusa here points out that he's specifically targeted Natsume's left hand because he caught on to the fact that Natsume has been using that hand to use his alice for most of the battle. He can use his right hand, as we see in other moments, and even on the next page of this scene, but I think his left hand is his dominant hand and thus the one he feels most comfortable using.

He even uses his left hand to make an alice stone! If you were crafting something with love and care, you'd probably use your dominant hand, right? (Or, rather... left.... hehe :P)

Honestly if this was a couple one-off times regarding his alice use, I wouldn't make anything of it, but it's so consistent, it must mean something.

But! I have more evidence than just alice use, although I think that's pretty significant.

We'll start with my weaker and more desperate evidence...

He tends to reach out with the left hand. I've noticed a slight tendency for him to turn on his left side (like in the above example with the water fountain as well as this scene with Ruka), or to lean on the left side, which is not necessarily proof but just padding for my study.

The center image in particular seems so telling to me. After the ground closes up, Natsume instantly collects himself and even seems embarrassed by how much emotion he showed, which signals that this moment was knee-jerk fear to help Mikan. He reaches out with his left hand because it's the familiar hand and it's an instinctive move.

This is the same reasoning as above. Natsume grabs this kid and gets him out of the way of danger and thus his left hand is stuck to the kid for an hour, so we consistently see him with his left hand out of commission. I think, because this was a knee-jerk and instinctive move, he reached out with the left hand again to save the kid from being crushed.

These are stretches, but humor me! The shape of the fingers suggests that's his left hand, and I either hold a book with two hands or with my dominant. It feels a little weird to hold it with my non-dominant. The next one is him feeding the animals with his left hand despite the animals being on his right. Subconsciously, people move to favor their dominant side to make things easier.

Alright, on to stronger stuff. According to the internet, what hand you use to write is pretty indicative of your handedness. We have the image with Ruka above, where we can see him writing with his left hand.

This scene is very important to me! Technically, Natsume does end up writing the answer on the chalkboard with fire using his right pointer finger, but that's because he'd already picked up the chalk with his left to write with and only drops it when he's moving past the area. He's a lazy boy too, so...

Using violence, LMAO. He hits with his left hand and... I don't know if y'all have ever thrown a punch or slapped someone, but... I mean, in my experience you prefer your dominant hand.

For such precision-oriented actions as these examples above, you'd likely use your left-hand. He does use his right hand in Chapter 9 playing dodgeball (but it's the one time he's shown actively throwing it, so IDK. Could be a fluke or a mistake.), but I'm inclined to ignore that. I don't really toss things with my non-dominant hand the way Natsume does with the cockroach, so that's probably the hand he's more comfortable with. The second image is him after he threw a ball at Tono's head, and, for max aim ability, one would use their dominant hand for that. The last one.... First, he's so cool. I've never been able to do that, dominant hand or no (I'm bad at sports), but it was always a bit easier on my right hand (dominant) than otherwise, so I think that's proof too.

Moving on...

People use their dominant hand to use eating utensils, as we saw above with other characters. These are multiple examples from across the manga where Natsume uses his left hand to use a fork or chopsticks. I will concede that in the last image where Natsume is eating a New Year's meal with chopsticks, many other characters are using their left hands despite me knowing they're right-handed, namely Hotaru. That being said, the other evidence here makes me think Natsume's left-handedness is intentional.

And here it is, my biggest proof:

(Ruka is a rightie here, and no animal in sight, so maybe this is his natural way of being... Then again, he could always be ambidextrous, like I said, though that is exceptionally rare. Then again, Ruka is exceptional, so <3)

Here, Higuchi Tachibana would have had to go out of her way to draw Natsume eating with a different hand than Aoi or Ruka. This evidence to me is SO LOUD. Not only does this further cement that Natsume is a leftie and not all other characters are, but also that it's not an accident or even a headcanon. This is proof that it was intentional on Higuchi Tachibana's part to draw him left-handed! I've always been obsessed with this page, so I was bound to catch this eventually. Yet another reason to love this panel lol.

I have stuff I couldn't fit in here because even with a 30 image limit I am tempted to go overboard, but this should be sufficient. Natsume is a leftie!

Did y'all know lefties tend to excel more in sports? They also tend to be better fighters (as we can see in the violence examples above) because they move from an unexpected side. The fact that the world is designed to favor right-handedness means lefties have an unforeseen advantage in sports and fighting because they move from a side righties don't anticipate as naturally.

But many tools, computer equipment, and even instruments are designed for easier right-handed use, which can be inconvenient or even dangerous for lefties. Thus, I didn't know how a sax would work regarding handedness (and also Natsume sucks at playing it anyway) which is why I didn't even really check out those chapters.

Anyway, handedness doesn't really affect many things in a meaningful way despite some propaganda or vague correlations saying otherwise and lefties face an often-overlooked series of disadvantages, which is why I think Natsume being a leftie is interesting, because his life is hard enough already. Oh well.

Anyway, I hope y'all enjoyed reading this rambling! Natsume being left-handed is something I will not let go of. I will DIE on this hill, especially because it's pretty clearly intentional.

#gakuen alice #ga #hyuuga natsume #my meta #ga meta #of course i cant really talk abt him being a leftie without discussing why most other characters ARENT.#anyway. i hope this was a fun read. it was fun to put together #ive wanted to make this post for a while but i'd never actually gathered evidence for it before this #i figured i might as well compile my evidence #bc i always write natsume as a leftie in my fics so. its pretty important to me #this post also made me realize ruka is a bit more ambiguous w handedness so! i like the idea that he could be ambidextrous #thats so cool of him lol

34 notes · View notes

synesindri · 1 year ago

Text

lucifer gender symbolism essay part 1: mostly non-spn background, context, & caveats

masterpost

this section is about historical non-spn representations of lucifer as a feminine/female figure, and associations between lucifer/satan/etc and female and feminine entities. my purpose in this section is to connect lucifer supernatural to a bigger cultural phenomenon to give some context to the rest of the more spn-centric parts.

the devil presenting femininely is part of a cultural tradition that i expect kripke, various supernatural writers, and others involved in the making of supernatural were at least partially aware of. there are enough nods in supernatural canon to theology, mythology, and pop culture about the devil that it seems reasonable to suppose that the devil appearing with a variety of gender presentations was not a totally unfamiliar concept to the show’s creators, and might be deliberate seasoning stirred into the character we ended up getting.

part i: historical fem!lucifer part ii: lucifer as a cultural figure and gender norm breaking part iii: some of lucifer supernatural's various other political parallels

HISTORICAL FEM!LUCIFER

whether or not biblical angels have sexes or genders such that using gendered language to describe them even makes sense is a whole topic, but anyway. a lot of the early history of the figure of satan/the devil/the antagonist/etc is as a male figure, or at least written about using masculine terms. i’m going to take the male representations as a given and not go into all that here. i'm focusing on the other ones.

let's start with names. specifically, “lucifer” and “the morning star” (both in relation to the figure we know as the devil and not)

the roman goddess diana is sometimes known as “diana lucifera.” i’m just pulling from cicero’s discussion of that via wikipedia but here:

... people regard Diana and the moon as one and the same. ... the moon (luna) is so called from the verb to shine (lucere). Lucina is identified with it, which is why in our country they invoke Juno Lucina in childbirth, just as the Greeks call on Diana the Light-bearer. Diana also has the name Omnivaga ("wandering everywhere"), not because of her hunting but because she is numbered as one of the seven planets; her name Diana derives from the fact that she turns darkness into daylight (dies).

so, this isn’t about biblical lucifer, but still, the name has connections to a goddess here, and specifically in the context of childbirth (a traditionally gendered process).

the morning star is venus, a planet associated with one of the major roman goddesses, venus, whose femininity is important. this is kind of a circuitous connection; to the best of my knowledge, the reason for the connection between the devil figure and the morning star stems from the planet’s trajectory through the sky-as-seen-from-earth, that makes it look like it is falling from highest heaven downward, which is relevant symbolism. afaik, though, lucifer’s connection to that planet has nothing explicitly to do with any other goddess’s/god’s/other figure’s connection with it, so this is kind of a mood point. nonetheless, the two are connected now, even if they weren’t at origin. this planet is also associated with the goddess inanna/ishtar, as well as various other religious and mythological male figures.

so, there's that. now for representations of the devil as such ~

the reason i personally hopped onto the fem!lucifer train originally was lucifera, the representative of pride in edmund spenser’s the faerie queene, which i read the semester in college before i first watched spn! so that was a fun convergence, and made me especially excited when spn lucifer was played by women in their first three appearances. here’s part of a description of lucifera:

And proud Lucifera men did her call, That made her selfe a Queene, and crownd to be

this isn’t much, but it establishes her as a regal bitch immediately. she’s an interesting fixture i think, and afaik one of the earliest depictions of the biblical figure of lucifer as a feminine figure.

a lot of medieval paintings of genesis 3 depict the serpent as a kind of naga, with a long snake body and a woman’s face and torso. the serpent from genesis isn’t necessarily the devil, but because a lot of lore connects the two, including supernatural itself, that seems like as much fair game to mention here as most of the rest of this. medieval and renaissance depictions of figures that are more explicitly the devil are often sexually ambiguous, sometimes with breasts and a beard and a mouth instead of genitalia, among other interesting setups.

satan appears in female forms in a lot of folklore. this usually seems more instrumental than anything — as in, satan appears as a hot woman to seduce some guy to evil — but honestly, who’s to say if she just likes being a girl sometimes. regardless of the reason, this creates a cultural image of the devil as gender-shifting. lucifer spn appearing as sarah to nick and jess to sam etc is a good example of this trope.

there have been various other more recent pop culture depictions of satan/lucifer/the devil as a feminine figure, an androgynous figure, or as a woman specifically, some of which are outlined here. others are presented in per faxneld’s article “woman and the devil: some recurring motifs,” which i can’t link because it’s behind an academia paywall but i recommend it if you can get a hold of it.

probably there are more examples, but i feel like this is enough of a survey to prove my point that historical depictions of lucifer/satan/the morning star/whatever you want to call this figure are not exclusively male and masculine.

tl;dr: lucifer the mythological figure and the appellations lucifer/the morning star are not uniquely masculine, and they have long histories of genderweirdness. depicting the devil as a feminine, female, androgynous, or ungendered figure is part of an established cultural tradition. imo, picking up evidence that lucifer supernatural is being represented as a feminine figure is not a reach.

LUCIFER AND GENDER NORM BREAKING

cw for discussion of irl sexism in religious doctrine (and some mentions of homophobic and transphobic sentiment with religious underpinnings) through much of this section.

so, ok. the intricacies of scriptural feminism are wayyy beyond what i am adequately educated on to speak about in depth. i’m also much more familiar with christianity than other religions, so i will mostly be speaking to that unfortunately. but. i gotta talk about it a little, because it’s important culturally as background for why fem!lucifer is an established trope.

an example of someone who knows more than me writing about this, as a jumping off point:

Phrasings like ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord’ (Eph. 5:22), and the ways in which they have been used to serve patriarchal ends, make it easy to see why some feminists would later view God as the protector of patriarchy (and, occasionally, Satan as an ally in the fight against it).

— Woman and the Devil: Some Recurring Motifs (Per Faxneld)

this is basically the foundation for a lot of this. god the father is the patriarch, who demands subjugation from men to him, and from women to both him and to men. satan, god's antagonist, might plausibly want the opposite of that.

in john milton’s paradise lost, satan as the serpent certainly uses an anti-patriarchal angle when trying to tempt eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, telling her that there is no reason she should be lesser than adam, or even lesser than god, that eve is smart and impressive already, that god can’t really be all that great if he is jealous enough of his creations to deny them their full potential — and so she should eat the fruit for the sake of knowledge, and of power. this obviously doesn’t go well; milton did not intend this to make eve or satan seem admirable at the time. but idk, i’m not a 17th century protestant. imo what satan as offering was pretty sweet; i don't feel like there's much wrong with it. i got got by milton's trap lol. satan’s motives were rotten in PL, but even so, he kind of identified with eve at the same time as trying to get her to fall: he was basically luring her down the same path he took that led to his own fall. his temptation worked because he and the first woman had a lot in common. while his intentions were bad, the emotions behind them put him and eve in parallel to each other. regardless of whether this was a good or bad thing, it does position satan as someone who gasses up and identifies with Thee woman in PL.

the supernatural lore on temptation and the garden interesting in this context as well. i can only speak to season 5, but within kripke era, lucifer is described as having tempted lilith, not eve — but that is a relevant tie-in as well. lilith is a figure who refused to be subservient to man also, of her own accord, so to connect that to lucifer and temptation aligns lucifer once again with an anti-patriarchal stance. i will also stress that throughout s4-5 the description of the interactions between lucifer and lilith are of temptation, not torture, which parallels the eve story.

(certainly these temptations can be looked at as being anti-feminist as well. personally i'm more into inspecting the parallels between satan and eve or lucifer and lilith (and doing that is the most on-topic direction for the argument i'm trying to make here), but there are a lot of other good frames for analysis of these dynamics as well. just acknowledging that this, like everything else about this character, is slippery.)

lots of disliked and norm-breaking women — and gnc people, and genderqueer people, and trans people — have been described as devilish or of the devil or as worshipping the devil subsequently to demonize them. you can probably think of at least a handful of examples. in a very simplified way, to people who are on board with biblical patriarchy, anyone who isn't is bad news. who else is bad news? the devil. match made in hell.

obviously all of this is super misogynistic and part of a long tradition of religious vilification of women. “women are inferior because eve succumbed to the devil; women are the reason humanity exists in a fallen state,’ etc. my let's-complicate-satan agenda does not extend to trying to minimize the harm that has been done by associating some groups with the devil. the devil is, almost all the time, just a different way of calling someone or something fundamentally evil, and it is not good to go around aligning marginalized people with that figure who do not want to be associated with it. that is something that has happened a lot, to a lot of people’s detriment, and it has been used for a lot of human rights violations — which is relevant here, for better or for worse.

"for better" because sometimes, people decide that if they're going to be called evil anyway, they might as well embrace the devil, and turn him into a symbol to rally behind. and the devil is a pretty badass symbol, all things considered. people are scared of him — of her — and having people fear you and your allies can be a lot better than being subjugated.

again, you can probably think of examples of this. a lot of people lean into witch stuff even without being practitioners of witchcraft specifically for feminist or gender-subversion reasons. same sometimes goes for succubi and other demonic entities. lil nas x’s “montero” made ample use of edenic and demonic imagery (including that fucking fabulous fall from grace via pole) to represent queerness. lots of people in the supernatural fandom have Feelings for meg and ruby and other demons who are ostensibly female characters with significant roles on a show mostly about men, etc. there are also examples of satan being good for women in gothic literature, some uses of satan as a subversive rhetorical device for lesbian causes, etc (i’m referencing in passing various things from per faxneld’s book “Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture” for these last). satanism and luciferianism aren’t necessarily concerned with worshiping satan/lucifer, but they do use the names of that figure for their ideologies, which also aren’t necessarily explicitly feminist but do place a pretty heavy emphasis on free thought, self-empowerment, subversion of tradition, and liberation.

tl;dr: the devil has a history of being used to vilify and empower subversive individuals and cultural movements, including feminist and queer ones. as in the previous section, imo this makes interpreting lucifer supernatural’s gendered portrayal as feminine and/or genderweird part of a well-established, morally complicated cultural tradition.

an opinion: in stories where the devil is a (failed) rebel, i think it’s really compelling to give the devil figure characteristics that put them in opposition with the reigning power. there’s something about the devil being a mirror for god as well, of course, but it speaks to at least some versions of The Disenfranchised Experience to have lucifer be Different in a pivotal way. someone who wanted equality/freedom/whatever, but was denied it, and was therefore unendingly punished, but never lost their pride…it isn’t necessarily empowering; lucifer's revolutionary story can be a cautionary one (e.g. “this is what happens if you lean into the bad things people assume about you and let yourself become overcome by hate”), but it’s…idk it’s something. it’s interesting, at the very least. the villain era phenomenon speaks to it; the buttress’s song “brutus” that was circulating on everyone’s spotify discover weekly a few years ago speaks to it…it’s gripping. it’s a relatable antihero or villain story to many, i think.

(a few people in the tags of this post about satan in paradise lost, which makes no mention of gender or sexism, assumed that the post was about reacting to sexism and/or cissexism, which i thought was interesting and relevant also lol)

SOME OF LUCIFER SUPERNATURAL’S VARIOUS OTHER POLITICAL PARALLELS

[cw for mentions of fascism and other violent ideologies]

i want to be super clear that My Agenda here is not to use gender to try to make lucifer seem like a better or worse character, morally or in quality. imo whether lucifer reads as more feminine or more masculine or both or neither is morally neutral. beyond that, i fully recognize that supernatural’s lucifer is represented in ways that align him with a range of political metaphors, both reprehensible and sympathetic, that are difficult to disentangle from each other. if i’m going to talk about the character’s implied alignment with subversive movements and marginalized groups, i would feel remiss not to acknowledge that kripke’s lucifer is also explicitly an ecoterrorist — an ecofascist, even. in many ways, this character is written to mirror the way Some People feel that they are entitled to shape the world to their own liking, disregarding human life at their own whim. it’s not for nothing that the actor who plays the most recognizable version of lucifer on spn is a blonde white man; there’s symbolism there that must have been more important to the show’s creators than alternative directions they could have gone with casting purely on the basis of demographics/appearance, and that makes sense. i understand why people would compare supernatural’s lucifer to the boys’ homelander, for example; i’ve written meta about the parallels between them myself. i think the comparison is apt in many ways.

however, while homelander is a specific villain tied to specific current political and cultural issues, lucifer is more abstract than that, and as such is harder to fit into specific contemporary human ideologies. any version of lucifer/satan/the devil/whatever fits into a HUGE mythology, and when you write a sympathetic devil character — especially one deliberately and explicitly inspired by sympathetic devils of the past — you are inevitably ringing the same bells other sympathetic devil characters have rung before. and supernatural did not shy away from connecting its version of lucifer to that mythology! kripke’s lucifer is, paradoxically, a lot harder to pigeonhole as Bad through a contemporary lens than homelander is because lucifer is part of a myth that touches a huge number of times and cultures, rather than a direct commentary on and product of a particular modern american context.

the “taking the lives of others i deem unworthy” perspective is bad, but it’s also what hunters do, at a different scale. supernatural from the start has been a show that features situations designed to question the ethics of its protagonists as well as its villains, and lucifer is one of THE examples of that. pretty impossible to build a lucifer based on milton’s satan and not have him come across at least partially as a rebel against injustice (even if he has gone rotten in the process) and everything else that milton’s devil was. hard to do the devil-as-a-woman trope and not make her part of that tradition along with all it entails, misogynist and feminist alike. lucifer spn doesn’t fit tidily into political or identity boxes because he’s written to be harder to categorize than that — that’s part of the horror, and it’s part of what makes the heavy-handed connections to sam (and dean) all the more unsettling.

with all of that said

let’s get into lucifer’s genderweirdness on supernatural ~

part 2: gender in supernatural masterpost

#spnluciferweek #lucifer #spn #spn thots #meta

37 notes · View notes

tearsofthemushroom · 4 months ago

Note

I've seen you post about the Vorkosigan saga a bunch and checked wikipedia for a list of books to check out at least the first, but quickly realized that there's a lot of books, and also release dates don't necessarily correspond to chronology, and wikipedia was like "read in chronological order but with caveats" and never mentioned what those caveats were, so I thought I'd ask you if you have access to a good reading order and/or where you'd recommend to start the saga

Hiya @lady-vetinari (just tagging since I've been a bit slow replying and don't want this to get lost)! It's exciting that you're wanting to read the series, I really hope you enjoy!

I would agree that chronological order is probably the best, but there's three points you could concievably start from.

The very first book chronologically is Falling Free. This is set 200 years before the rest of the series and is quite a good standalone which serves as a nice intro to the universe and Bujold's writing style, but doesn't get into the Vorkosigan family. If you're not wanting a big commitment, I think this is a good place to begin.

The next place you could start is Shard of Honour. This is the book where we start following the Vorkosigan family, with Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan, who is the mother of the character who will become the protagonist for most of the series. This book is very good but it is quite heavy, including depictions of sexual violence, so it can be a bit much for a first experience.

Finally, you could start with The Warrior's Apprentice, which is the first book to follow Miles Vorkosigan, the principal protagonist. I started with this one, and would probably recommend it as the best place to jump off if you want to get stuck in to the series.

If you do start with The Warrior's Apprentice, I would continue mostly in chronological order, including the novellas. The exceptions to this would be to read Shards of Honour and Barrayar before Brothers in Arms (as Cordelia's influence on Miles is quite important in this book), and read Falling Free either before Labyrinth or Diplomatic Immunity (as Falling Free provides useful context for these stories).

Hope that's useful! There are a lot of books so if you have anything else you'd like me to clarify just let me know!

#the vorkosigan saga

3 notes · View notes

momo-t-daye · 2 years ago

Text

HP worldbuilding ramble primarily regarding comets and Voldemort

I rambled about this to @whimsyckle and @rubusart and now I’m tossing this idea up here to see if anyone wants to play with this concept/run with this idea/bounce thoughts around!

So, after several unsuccessful (and rather chilly) camping trips to darker skies (…when I wasn’t getting rained on/hoping that my tent wouldn't leak again) over the last few weeks, I wound up going to an observatory the other weekend where they could still pick up the “green comet” in the big telescope— it was pretty blurry and dim even so but, hooray, a comet! (I’m hoping we’ll get another nice bright comet soon, sure Halley’s comet is scheduled for 2061, but that’s still quite a few years down the road!)

And thus I may have had comets on the brain for a little while now and that’s begun to spawn some world building thoughts.

(Caveat lector: I’m not an astronomer/astrophysicist/historian etc. I like having stars in the night sky and trying to find comets, but I enjoy meteor showers far more than trying to find Messier objects, so I am, at best, a very casual stargazer. There’s a lot of Wikipedia under these thoughts under here)

Okay. The stars can be charted and are very predictable, certain constellations are always in the sky at certain times and some are always visible. The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black uses stars and constellations as names, thus they are associated with the fixed and predictable heavens which reflects on their house being established and very important in wizarding society, right?

Then there are those bright planets (Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The others aren't particularly visible without telescopes) that seem to have their own strange pathways unrelated to the more predictable stars (the Greek word root for planet means something like "wanderer") that made them more important for astrological prophecy/divination (for example: “Mars is bright tonight” etc.; I suppose, too, that centaurs don’t have much interest in Uranus).

Comets (long-haired stars), which appeared in the sky unpredictably and for a limited period of time and with a path entirely erratic/eccentric compared to the predictable stars, were, historically (…and not just historically given modern cults and people buying gas masks out of fear of cyanide gas from Halley's Comet...), seen as omens/ill portents/signs of displeased higher powers/harbingers of doom (particularly for those in power).

Maybe the Wizarding World, which has classes in Divination and Astronomy taught to schoolchildren and has an important family associated with the predictable stars and might not know about Uranus, Neptune, and/or Pluto+, is likely to take comets as omens (rather than a 'dirty snowball' going through the solar system on it’s own orbit etc.). (Also, we get talking mirrors in the Leaky Cauldron, two-way mirrors, foe mirrors, the Mirror of Erised, maybe wizards aren’t about to put mirrors in telescopes and instead stick to older refracting telescopes)

Now then, Tom Riddle kinda has a very high/inflated sense of his own importance (unlike Harry, who was rather freaked out by the whole "Chosen One" thing), right? From his: "I knew I was different, I knew I was special. Always, I knew there was something" thing and giving himself a noble title, he rather strikes me as someone who would see astronomical or meteorological phenomena as signs confirming his significance.

So, there's the Geminid meteor shower in December, which tends to put on a good show (although it peaks in the middle of December, not the end) and the Quadrantids (which peak in early January) can sometimes be fairly active (for a few hours), but I’ve got comets on the brain at the moment.

I haven't found any records of a naked-eye visible comet in December 1926, but there was (the great) Comet Skjellerup-Maristany in December 1927 that was bright enough to be potentially visible in daylight and unusually golden. It was mostly visible in the Southern Hemisphere, but towards the end of December it (or at least the tail?) could apparently be seen in the Northern Hemisphere.

For an AU/headcanon of Tom Riddle thinking of himself as special for having a comet visible around the time of his birth, I wouldn't be above changing his birth year (or having him lie about it/get a little confused because he was born on New Years Eve and the next day it was 1927 and does he even know math?).

A Voldemort born under a comet (or one that thinks/claims to be born under a comet) might then consider comets as auspicious and decide to take certain actions when a comet appears.

There were several very bright comets in the late 50s, the 60s, and the 70s (between Tom Riddle leaving school and Voldemort's first rise to power/war); I could see this version of Voldemort timing the creation of Horcruxes 3, 4, and 5 to comets. Perhaps the cup and the locket (both stolen during the murder of Hepzibah Smith right?) were made in 1957 with Comet Arend-Roland and then, a few months later, Comet Mrkos. Maybe the diadem became a Horcrux in 1962 while Comet Seki-Lines was in the sky. Perhaps he sees the brilliant 1965 Comet Ikeya-Seki as a sign that he should return to Hogwarts (only to have his job application turned down by Dumbledore; it would change the time between Hokey the elf's memory and Dumbledore's memory to more like eight years rather than ten, but that's a pretty minor detail).

In the first book, when Dumbledore and Minerva meet at Privet Drive in 1981, Dumbledore says something about having had little to celebrate over the last eleven years. So, in this headcanon/AU whatever this ramble is, perhaps the 1970 appearance of Comet Bennet spurs Voldemort into action again after stewing over the disappointing job interview. Maybe he starts getting serious about mustering political power, starts building support, starts to put himself into the public eye as the Heir of Slytherin/born under a great comet/destined and prophesized to be important/mystical cult leader-y type stuff. Maybe he runs for Minister of Magic in 1974 with Comet Kohoutek (which was rather hyped up in the media at the time and then, although it was briefly quite bright, rather failed to live up to the hype and faded fast)- and only fails to win the position because of a great deal of work on the part of Dumbledore and his allies; which would subsequently lead Voldy to seeking alternate methods of obtaining power. Maybe he takes the appearance of Comet West in 1976 (the year of SWM) as an omen to escalate DE activities and violence (maybe he only starts branding his DEs at this point, he’s been thwarted in his attempts to work at Hogwarts and to obtain legitimate political power, he’s at a point where he needs to reassure himself that his supporters won’t have a chance to abandon/deny him), so the first war with Voldemort (and tensions between houses at Hogwarts) really ramp up right about the time Lily and Severus’ friendship is disintegrating just like the comet's nucleus.

Well, the 1986 regular visit from Comet Halley passed Voldy by due to his whole "attempting to murder the prophecy baby only to get hoisted by his own petard and left to float around as a wraith for a decade" thing, but when he made his physical return in the 90s there were some quite spectacular comets: Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp (...Heaven's Gate one) in particular.

In this AU/headcanon/whatever this ramble is, I'd move the Azkaban mass breakout in OotP from January 1996 to late March when Hyakutake was shining in the sky- with Voldy delaying on taking major non-Nagini action post-resurrection until the auspicious appearance of a bright comet (…as opposed to not taking major action because his machinations have to line up better with Harry’s school year…). Then, Hale-Bopp starts to become naked-eye visible in May 1996 (around the end of OotP), which could be the sign that prompts Voldemort to finally lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries with the false vision.

Hale-Bopp was naked-eye visible for 18 months, twice as long as the previous record for a comet being visible (which was in 1811 or so). Hale-Bopp was almost as bright as Sirius (the brightest star in the night sky) in late March/early April 1997 (so, during HBP) and only faded from naked-eye visibility around until December 1997 (or about the point in DH when Harry and Hermione went to Godric's Hollow and then manage to escape from Nagini); perhaps the combination of the comet that had been visible for so long fading from view and Harry escaping yet again drove Voldemort to more reckless moves to convince himself of his own importance/significance etc. since he'd not only failed to find the Elder Wand but also failed to kill Harry during the comet's reign?

Alright, so I am also very partial to the headcanon of a Severus with a childhood fondness for science fiction and fascination with space— as far as I’ve been able to find, the BBC aired the first episode of Star Trek on July 12th, 1969 and the lunar module would’ve landed around 8PM (GMT) on July 20th (if Sev stayed up until nearly 4AM into Monday the 21st, he could’ve seen Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. Do I like to imagine he did? Oh yes. Perhaps Tobias took him to the Railview Hotel where there was a watch party, perhaps it was one of Tobias’ good mood days and Sev sat on his shoulders to see over the crowd and hardly nodded off at all. Perhaps Sev had a sleepover at the Evans house, if July 1969 was a time when his da didn’t like much of anything. ...also, Sev could've seen "Amok Time" before going to Hogwarts...). Maybe a Severus who knew a bit more about space and such would've found treating comets like they were signs and portents a little embarrassing, it could've made him just a little less loyal/awed by the Dark Lord; but it could also mean that Sev would've heard about Hale-Bopp before it was visible to the eye/would’ve known that Voldy was going to see a sign to take dramatic action and would’ve dealt with that dreadful anticipation for nearly the entirety of OotP (Hale-Bopp was first detected in July 1995 (end of GoF) with telescopes, when it was somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn distances from earth).

In this, because I’m a little mean to evil Dark Lords/like things to be a bit more silly and absurd, I’d also put Dumbledore’s birth date and year as November 17th, 1882 (since we weren’t given one in the books and I know more about astronomy (which, again, is very little) than astrology). Not only should the Great Comet of 1882 have been visible at that point in time, that was also the date of a geomagnetic storm that resulted in a spectacular and very unusual aurora being visible in London (I think northern lights were also visible as far south as San Diego, California due to that particular solar discharge). Also, the Leonid (Leo the lion, Gryffindor connection there maybe?) meteor storm of 1966, while not visible in the UK, happened on November 17th (with peak rates of something like 10-40 meteors per second!?!). I just think it’d be awfully funny if Voldy, with an obsession over being special because of a comet around his birthdate, was tremendously jealous about how many fantastic natural phenomena happened on Dumbledore’s birth day (especially if Dumbledore, despite his best efforts to be or seem all-knowing, was entirely oblivious to that in particular).

#Worldbuilding #Voldemort #Albus Dumbledore #Severus Snape #Comets and stars and other phenomena for fun and fiction #Poking a bit of fun at evil Dark Lords #I do prefer things to be a bit on the silly side

23 notes · View notes

paramouradrift · 2 years ago

Note

Sorry for intuding on your blog but I have to tell you that your story has inspired me to try world building. I am hoping that it will get me out of a deep writing hole. That and it seems fun.

Got any tips for beginners?

This is honestly a topic I could go on and on about. Worldbuilding has been something of a hobby of mine since forever, and delving into the lore and history of interesting settings honestly can make my enjoyment of something so much better. So here are some tips and tricks you can use to help get started! TIP #1: don't be too ambitious. The purpose of worldbuilding is to serve the story you are trying to tell. Anything outside of that might be fun and interesting...but only to you. Adding in trivia from time to time is fine, however.

TIP #2: ask questions of your world! Your characters don't exist in a vacuum anymore: they live in a world, and that world has changed them. Where do they go to get their groceries? What's the current topic of discourse at the local tavern? What's the dominant religion in your protagonist's hometown, and what kinds of rituals or worship services do they have? Who's the president/prime minister/king, and how did they get elected? What fruits or vegetables are currently in season in this world? Asking questions like this is a way to organically build out from some characters and a plot to make the story feel believable, like it's about believable people in a lived-in place with compelling and relatable problems.

TIP #3: purposeful research. I draw a lot of inspiration from real-world things, and that means I spend a lot of time trawling wikipedia and google for things like: ship blueprints, engineering diagrams, historical Chinese pirates, popular names in foreign languages, etc. If I want to include something in my world, but I don't know much about the topic, then that's a perfect time to start learning. Since I'm using what I learn for fiction-writing purposes, I can be satisfied with a surface-level understanding on most uncontroversial topics. This does come with a caveat: if you want to tackle a controversial issue in your writing, it is your responsibility to understand that issue. I like this video by OSP about how to do research, but there's not one right way to do it.

TIP #4: DO YOU HAVE A MAP!? If you don't then why the fuck not!? I'm visual. Looking at maps is how I orient myself spatially, and it's how I organize information about my worlds. Maps are useful. Maps are important. Without maps, we are truly all lost. Plus! There are so many ways you can use maps in your story! In H&V, I use maps of the world of Avatar to help me plot out Zuko's travels and work out how long realistically those trips would take. There are so many resources out there for making maps, populating maps, and interpreting maps. You really don't have an excuse.

TIP #5: you're not alone. There are whole communities out there of writers, gamers, fans, nerds, and others who are passionate about fiction and worldbuilding. Engage with them! Talk to them about your story, or about your world! Listen to their advice and their critiques. Watch their videos or slide into their DMs. Join their discords. I like Hello Future Me for this kind of thing because he is a writer who worldbuilds and who has a lot of great advice for structuring stories and characters. I also like Artifexian for his systematic look at different worldbuilding topics. But there are so many others.

The most important thing I have to say is this: at the end of the day, writing should be fun or rewarding. It should spark joy. If you find yourself running into a wall or falling into a hole with your writing, that's a good sign that something isn't working. And if something isn't working, change it! I certainly did when I was looking down my early drafts of H&V. Change the world to suit your story, or change your story to better fit into the world you've made. You have the power!

#writing

5 notes · View notes

itinerantappalachian · 1 year ago

Note

I was intrigued by this question, so I went and did some data crunching to figure out whether siting a state capital in a state’s largest city made it more accessible, at least as measured by its proximity to the state’s mean center of population (CoP), the theoretical “point on which a rigid, weightless map [of the state] would balance perfectly, if the population members are represented as points of equal mass.” Obviously there are a number of legitimate reservations one could make about using this measurement (e.g. if all of a state’s population lived at two points on opposite ends, the CoP would be in the middle of nowhere), but it seemed like a good enough starting point of equality for this back-of-the-envelope discussion.

So I started off by finding the latitude/longitude position of each state’s center of population as determined by the 2020 US Census. I then used an online tool determined the distance between each state’s center of population and its capital and largest city (an important caveat, I was unable to find a ready list of each state’s largest MSA, and so had to do with Wikipedia’s list of largest cities by state, which could affect results). Here’s my findings:

Of the 50 states, 17 (marked in yellow) have their capital sited in their largest city, while 33 have them sited in two separate locations. Of those 33 that have them sited in two separate locations, 11 (marked in red) have their capitals sited further away from their CoP than their largest city, arguably making their largest city a better site than their current capital. As you can see, Alaska is the biggest outlier, with its CoP over 500 miles closer to Anchorage than Juneau. Without going into a complicated statistical breakdown, these states appear to be more populous, urbanized, or have a reputation for being dominated by their largest cities.

On the other hand, 22 of the 33 states that have different capitals and largest cities have their capitals closer to their CoP than their largest city, arguably making their current capital site a better choice. Missouri leads, with its capital Jefferson City position smack dab between the relatively equally-sized St. Louis and Kansas City making its capital city 140 miles closer to its CoP than its largest city, a dynamic we may also see in states like Pennsylvania (Harrisburg btwn Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), Virginia (Richmond between Virginia Beach and NoVa) Texas (with Austin centrally located between several metro areas. In more rural states like Montana, South Carolina, and North Dakota, this may also be a sign of just a generally more dispersed population.

Comparing the 33 states that have different capitals and largest cities with the 17 that have their capitals sited in their largest cities also shows us some interesting trends. In terms of mean, the different cities states have, on average, capital cities 72 miles away from their CoP, almost twice as much distance compared to the 39 miles of the same cities states, although a lot of that is due to the outlier Alaska. If Alaska is removed, the mean distance for the different cities states comes down to about 58 miles. The two are more evenly-matched in terms of median though, with same cities states just barely edging out the different cities states 34.72 to 35.4 (edit: the screenshot says 26 to 34, but the excel function messed up).

All told, I think this data tells us a couple interesting things. Despite the majority of different city states having capitals closer to their CoP than their largest cities, the fact the overall mean distance for different cities states is higher shows that a few key states have capitals pretty far removed from their populations, and looking at them, these states seem to be more populous, urbanized, and populated by persons of color.

On the other hand, the fact that so many states have sited their capital closer to their CoP may mean there’s something to the smaller city capital. From what I’ve read, a lot of states sited their capital close to their geographic center to balance various regional interests, and especially in states without an overly dominant city, it makes a certain amount of sense to try and split the difference on travel time from different parts of the state.

So would you say you're somebody that believes Boston, Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, Honolulu, Boise, Little Rock, Indianapolis, Providence, Des Moines, Cheyenne, Jackson MS, Charleston WV, Columbus OH, Columbia SC, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City (yes I try to check which state capitals were also their state's largest city) is the better model for a state capital? Largest population isn't the sole criteria about New York since also it's the state's business hub and arts & entertainment hub too.

Yes. I think it's better on democratic principles:

it allows the largest number of state residents (especially poorer and working-class residents) to directly lobby, petition, or protest their government in the same city where they live - rather than having to take a long trip.

likewise, when it comes to state legislators, it hopefully allows the largest number to come from the ranks of the poor and the working-class, because they don't have to bear the increased burdens of commuting or establishing two residences.

similarly, even for voters and legislators who come from outside the city, choosing the largest city for the capital generally means better transportation network connections, which makes for an easier commute.

finally, it hopefully means that by making the problems of the biggest city the problems of the state government when it comes to stuff like transportation, housing, education, public utilities and services, public safety, etc. that there's more of an incentive to do something about them.

Also, I think the historic reasons for state capitals which weren't the extant largest city at time of statehood usually boil down to rural dislike of the big city, which I don't consider a valid reason for important constitutional decisions.

#us states #population #cities #capitals

44 notes · View notes

yuk-tepat · 2 years ago

Text

'Easy' Conlanging

Sometimes I get asked for feedback about languages, or get asked to for commissions, but I also get questions of the sort “What is the easiest way for a non-language-geek to create a language that’s just “good enough”?” for background purposes in some fictional setting. So I thought I’d post my thoughts on this.

First, a caveat - as you are probably aware - realism and depth are proportional to the time put into the language. They are also a spectrum, so “how much” is enough can be hard to answer. Additionally, if you succeed and make it interesting enough, fans will want to poke around and find out how it works. Then they will realize whether there’s more to the language or not. (And possibly make their own version of it.) You’re better off creating more depth and detail than you need, because trying to flesh out something AFTER the fact is much more difficult. You will end up with inconsistencies and explaining them away will eventually take more work than creating a detailed grammar in the first place. From my experience working on languages with people who had already named characters before trying to make the language, making a language invariably ends up forcing name changes.

(1800-word wall of text to follow)

Your best bet is over-creating, or getting someone else to do, but I understand this isn’t possible for everyone. Maybe you don’t have time to learn & do it all yourself, or money to pay someone. May you live in an Amazon warehouse.

That said, if you know what you want and make some basic design choices ahead of time, you can simplify the process. So I’ll tell you what I think is the quickest way to make a reasonable-looking language.

STEP ONE: GOALS

What do you want? The important questions are probably:

HOW much realism and depth do you need? Does the language have a long history, does it have a wide range (possible dialectal differences), are there levels of speech and a literary tradition? Yes to any of these = more work.

Do you only need one language?

If you have more than one language ARE THEY RELATED?

Does it need a writing system, or is writing it in Roman letters fine? Writing system = a lot more work.

Are you going to use it ONLY for names, or might you want to translate phrases? Even simple sentences will require grammar that you can ignore in names.

Is there any real-life language you want it to sound like? If there is, you might get away with copying the phonology.

STEP TWO: PHONOLOGY

The phonology / spelling is the most obvious part to audiences so you should do the most work here. Start by organizing the sounds you want in it in a table. You can copy an IPA chart somewhere & start adding or removing sounds you like to it.

Most languages do not have random groups of sounds. Their sounds line up sort of neatly in the chart. Most rows AND columns should have several sounds. Beware if your chart looks too gappy. Some languages (Classical Arabic) may have lots of gaps but don’t do this as a general rule.

Many creators have real world languages that they like (“I want something that sounds kind of Germanic”). In that case, you can go to the Wikipedia article & copy the sound chart, possibly adding / subtracting 1-2 sounds.

Besides the sounds, you should think about how they combine (phonotactics). Does your language have simple or complex syllables? Can 2 (or more vowels occur in a row? How many consonants can occur in a row? Can syllables begin with vowels or end with consonants? Along with this, please decide which syllable in your words receives stress, or whether stress is fixed at all. As far as the “feeling” of the language goes, this is just as important as which sounds you choose.

Keep in mind, the fewer sounds there are, and the simpler the syllables, the more syllables words will need in order to avoid having lots of homophones.

TIP: Try to keep your names under four syllables, unless you plan to create nicknames for them. Nobody likes or will even remember a 20-letter personal name, unless its length is part of the joke.

Now take it to a word generator like the Zompist WordGen (https://www.zompist.com/gen.html) and plug in all the phonemes and follow the instructions for making rules & it will spit out a giant list of possible words in your language. Don’t just use them all, at least glance at each word & select it, because no matter how you engineer it some of the words will be fugly.

If you only need names, make up mostly noun, adjective, and verb meanings. If you need sentences, you may need prepositions, conjunctions, etc., depending on how inflectional you are (step 5).

*TIP: If you want added depth, create an EARLIER version of your language, and then run sound changes on it with the SCA (https://www.zompist.com/sca2.html) to create the target language.

(*OTHER NOTE: You will absolutely need to create a parent language, no buts, if you want to create another language that’s related, and if you try to get around it, the result will look fake and lame.)

STEP THREE. DECIDE THE ORTHOGRAPHY

…or at least the Romanization. If you need a unique writing system, you won’t have an easy time so I assume you don’t. That would require another post. Right now you might have IPA words but you probably don’t want to write your world’s names in IPA. Most of the audience won’t know how to read them. Assuming your audience is English-speaking, try to decide the nearest approximation of the pronunciation using the 26 letters of the alphabet with kind of English-ish spelling conventions. I.e., you should probably spell /ʃ/ as SH instead of CH like French or X like Portuguese.

*NOTE: Will you use any diacritics (accent marks)? Some people like ‘em, some people hate ‘em. Even if you love them, try not to use more than two kinds in your language. And make sure the accent actually means something, don’t just throw random ones in. The same point applies to apostrophes: please don’t just throw them in there.

STEP FOUR: WORD ORDER

Figure out the order of elements. Pick one of these two:

“VO” MENU - “OV” MENU

noun before adjective - adjective before noun possession before possessor - possessor before possession verb before object - object before verb preposition before noun - noun before POSTposition noun before relative clause - relative clause before noun. name before surname - surname before name title before name - name before title some prefixes - mostly suffixes

Languages tend towards one of these types. Very few are perfectly consistent (English isn’t), and some languages are widely off-type, but MOST languages are MOSTLY in one of these camps. And you should probably not mess with them too much if your plan is not to be really involved in the grammar.

Some of these are most important for forming sentences. If you’re just making names, at least decide the first three orders. But by choosing one of those basic types ahead of time, you can expand the grammar by adding the rules that tend to go with the type.

If you’re making sentences too - congratulations! You got a bonus choice!

From the VO menu, choose…

SVO (subject - verb - object)

VSO (verb - subject - object)

VOS (verb - object - subject)

From the OV menu, choose…

SOV (subject - object - verb)

OSV (object - subject - verb)

OVS (object - verb - subject)

*NOTE: the last two are really, really rare, but an easy way to make your language seem weird.

STEP FIVE: ANALYTIC OR SYNTHETIC?

What this means is, does the language have lots of inflections or not? Are its words fairly simple or complex? If it is analytic, it will have few or no inflections. Most of the relationship between words will be fixed by word order, which will be inflexible. Most of your names will be compound words. The parts of the compound may be more or less abstract, but will exist and have meanings as independent words.

If your language is synthetic, you will have inflections. Most words will consist of a root with prefixes or suffixes added to it. So make some prefixes or suffixes, according to your type.

For a naming language, I would advise at least suffixes to:

make an adjective from a noun

make a noun from an adjective

make a noun from a verb

make a diminutive or nickname-former

“son of” or equivalent

“place of” blah de blah

For making sentences, add:

suffix to turn nouns into verbs

suffix to turn adjective into verbs

a couple of suffixes to make different verb tenses or moods

(optional) person suffixes on verbs

(optional) case suffixes on nouns

Oh, I almost forgot, make some plurals.

I advise you to make your inflectional language agglutinative, with easily distinguishable suffixes that tack onto each other in a neat order. I don’t advise a fusional language (where suffixes combine more than one grammatical category). If this is your first time for goodness sake don’t make a Semitic triliteral root language.

OPTIONAL:

If you need sentences, you have additional choices:

Do nouns have case suffixes?

Do verbs have person suffixes?

If the answer is NO to both, then your word order is probably very rigid. If the answer is YES to either, then also decide:

Is your language nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive?

Look them up. You could also have split-ergative, or something exotic like direct-inverse, but you're best off making it consistently nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive.

STEP SIX:

Create cool culturally appropriate expressions from your words. If you’re not a grammar nerd this will probably be the most fun part. General rule: More is less - it’s best to express as many concepts as you can by combining the elements you’ve already made, than making up a new word for each new concept.

Hope you have fun making your language.

I invite other conlangers to chime in with their advice.

#conlang #meta

149 notes · View notes

bao3bei4 · 3 years ago

Text

fan language: the victorian imaginary and cnovel fandom

there’s this pinterest image i’ve seen circulating a lot in the past year i’ve been on fandom social media. it’s a drawn infographic of a, i guess, asian-looking woman holding a fan in different places relative to her face to show what the graphic helpfully calls “the language of the fan.”

people like sharing it. they like thinking about what nefarious ancient chinese hanky code shenanigans their favorite fan-toting character might get up to⁠—accidentally or on purpose. and what’s the problem with that?

the problem is that fan language isn’t chinese. it’s victorian. and even then, it’s not really quite victorian at all.

--------------------

fans served a primarily utilitarian purpose throughout chinese history. of course, most of the surviving fans we see⁠—and the types of fans we tend to care about⁠—are closer to art pieces. but realistically speaking, the majority of fans were made of cheaper material for more mundane purposes. in china, just like all around the world, people fanned themselves. it got hot!

so here’s a big tipoff. it would be very difficult to use a fan if you had an elaborate language centered around fanning yourself.

you might argue that fine, everyday working people didn’t have a fan language. but wealthy people might have had one. the problem we encounter here is that fans weren’t really gendered. (caveat here that certain types of fans were more popular with women. however, those tended to be the round silk fans, ones that bear no resemblance to the folding fans in the graphic). no disrespect to the gnc old man fuckers in the crowd, but this language isn’t quite masc enough for a tool that someone’s dad might regularly use.

folding fans, we know, reached europe in the 17th century and gained immense popularity in the 18th. it was there that fans began to take on a gendered quality. ariel beaujot describes in their 2012 victorian fashion accessories how middle class women, in the midst of a top shortage, found themselves clutching fans in hopes of securing a husband.

she quotes an article from the illustrated london news, suggesting “women ‘not only’ used fans to ‘move the air and cool themselves but also to express their sentiments.’” general wisdom was that the movement of the fan was sufficiently expressive that it augmented a woman’s displays of emotion. and of course, the more english audiences became aware that it might do so, the more they might use their fans purposefully in that way.

notice, however, that this is no more codified than body language in general is. it turns out that “the language of the fan” was actually created by fan manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century⁠—hundreds of years after their arrival⁠ in europe—to sell more fans. i’m not even kidding right now. the story goes that it was louis duvelleroy of the maison duvelleroy who decided to include pamphlets on the language with each fan sold.

interestingly enough, beaujot suggests that it didn’t really matter what each particular fan sign meant. gentlemen could tell when they were being flirted with. as it happens, meaningful eye contact and a light flutter near the face may be a lingua franca.

so it seems then, the language of the fan is merely part of this victorian imaginary we collectively have today, which in turn itself was itself captivated by china.

--------------------

victorian references come up perhaps unexpectedly often in cnovel fandom, most often with regards to modesty.

it’s a bit of an awkward reference considering that chinese traditional fashion⁠—and the ambiguous time periods in which these novels are set⁠—far predate victorian england. it is even more awkward considering that victoria and her covered ankles did um. imperialize china.

but nonetheless, it is common. and to make a point about how ubiquitous it is, here is a link to the twitter search for “sqq victorian.” sqq is the fandom abbreviation for shen qingqiu, the main character of the scum villain’s self-saving system, by the way.

this is an awful lot of results for a search involving a chinese man who spends the entire novel in either real modern-day china or fantasy ancient china. that’s all i’m going to say on the matter, without referencing any specific tweet.

i think people are aware of the anachronism. and i think they don’t mind. even the most cursory research reveals that fan language is european and a revisionist fantasy. wikipedia can tell us this⁠—i checked!

but it doesn’t matter to me whether people are trying to make an internally consistent canon compliant claim, or whether they’re just free associating between fan facts they know. it is, instead, more interesting to me that people consistently refer to this particular bit of history. and that’s what i want to talk about today⁠—the relationship of fandom today to this two hundred odd year span of time in england (roughly stuart to victorian times) and england in that time period to its contemporaneous china.

things will slip a little here. victorian has expanded in timeframe, if only because random guys posting online do not care overly much for respect for the intricacies of british history. china has expanded in geographic location, if only because the english of the time themselves conflated china with all of asia.

in addition, note that i am critiquing a certain perspective on the topic. this is why i write about fan as white here⁠—not because all fans are white⁠—but because the tendencies i’m examining have a clear historical antecedent in whiteness that shapes how white fans encounter these novels.

i’m sure some fans of color participate in these practices. however i don’t really care about that. they are not its main perpetrators nor its main beneficiaries. so personally i am minding my own business on that front.

it’s instead important to me to illuminate the linkage between white as subject and chinese as object in history and in the present that i do argue that fannish products today are built upon.

--------------------

it’s not radical, or even new at all, for white audiences to consume⁠—or create their own versions of⁠—chinese art en masse. in many ways the white creators who appear to owe their whole style and aesthetic to their asian peers in turn are just the new chinoiserie.

this is not to say that white people can’t create asian-inspired art. but rather, i am asking you to sit with the discomfort that you may not like the artistic company you keep in the broader view of history, and to consider together what is to be done about that.

now, when i say the new chinoiserie, i first want to establish what the original one is. chinoiserie was a european artistic movement that appeared coincident with the rise in popularity of folding fans that i described above. this is not by coincidence; the european demand for asian imports and the eventual production of lookalikes is the movement itself. so: when we talk about fans, when we talk about china (porcelain), when we talk about tea in england⁠—we are talking about the legacy of chinoiserie.

there are a couple things i want to note here. while english people as a whole had a very tenuous knowledge of what china might be, their appetites for chinoiserie were roughly coincident with national relations with china. as the relationship between england and china moved from trade to out-and-out wars, chinoiserie declined in popularity until china had been safely subjugated once more by the end of the 19th century.

the second thing i want to note on the subject that contrary to what one might think at first, the appeal of chinoiserie was not that it was foreign. eugenia zuroski’s 2013 taste for china examines 18th century english literature and its descriptions of the according material culture with the lens that chinese imports might be formative to english identity, rather than antithetical to it.

beyond that bare thesis, i think it’s also worthwhile to extend her insight that material objects become animated by the literary viewpoints on them. this is true, both in a limited general sense as well as in the sense that english thinkers of the time self-consciously articulated this viewpoint. consider the quote from the illustrated london news above⁠—your fan, that object, says something about you. and not only that, but the objects you surround yourself with ought to.

it’s a bit circular, the idea that written material says that you should allow written material to shape your understanding of physical objects. but it’s both 1) what happened, and 2) integral, i think, to integrating a fannish perspective into the topic.

--------------------

japanning is the name for the popular imitative lacquering that english craftspeople developed in domestic response to the demand for lacquerware imports. in the eighteenth century, japanning became an artform especially suited for young women. manuals were published on the subject, urging young women to learn how to paint furniture and other surfaces, encouraging them to rework the designs provided in the text.

it was considered a beneficial activity for them; zuroski describes how it was “associated with commerce and connoisseurship, practical skill and aesthetic judgment.” a skillful japanner, rather than simply obscuring what lay underneath the lacquer, displayed their superior judgment in how they chose to arrange these new canonical figures and effects in a tasteful way to bring out the best qualities of them.

zuroski quotes the first english-language manual on the subject, written in 1688, which explains how japanning allows one to:

alter and correct, take out a piece from one, add a fragment to the next, and make an entire garment compleat in all its parts, though tis wrought out of never so many disagreeing patterns.

this language evokes a very different, very modern practice. it is this english reworking of an asian artform that i think the parallels are most obvious.

white people, through their artistic investment in chinese material objects and aesthetics, integrated them into their own subjectivity. these practices came to say something about the people who participated in them, in a way that had little to do with the country itself. their relationship changed from being a “consumer” of chinese objects to becoming the proprietor of these new aesthetic signifiers.

--------------------

i want to talk about this through a few pairs of tensions on the subject that i think characterize common attitudes then and now.

first, consider the relationship between the self and the other: the chinese object as something that is very familiar to you, speaking to something about your own self vs. the chinese object as something that is fundamentally different from you and unknowable to you.

consider: [insert character name] is just like me. he would no doubt like the same things i like, consume the same cultural products. we are the same in some meaningful way vs. the fast standard fic disclaimer that “i tried my best when writing this fic, but i’m a english-speaking westerner, and i’m just writing this for fun so...... [excuses and alterations the person has chosen to make in this light],” going hand-in-hand with a preoccupation with authenticity or even overreliance on the unpaid labor of chinese friends and acquaintances.

consider: hugh honour when he quotes a man from the 1640s claiming “chinoiserie of this even more hybrid kind had become so far removed from genuine Chinese tradition that it was exported from India to China as a novelty to the Chinese themselves”

these tensions coexist, and look how they have been resolved.

second, consider what we vest in objects themselves: beaujot explains how the fan became a sexualized, coquettish object in the hands of a british woman, but was used to great effect in gilbert and sullivan’s 1885 mikado to demonstrate the docility of asian women.

consider: these characters became expressions of your sexual desires and fetishes, even as their 5’10 actors themselves are emasculated.

what is liberating for one necessitates the subjugation and fetishization of the other.

third, consider reactions to the practice: enjoyment of chinese objects as a sign of your cosmopolitan palate vs “so what’s the hype about those ancient chinese gays” pop culture explainers that addressed the unconvinced mainstream.

consider: zuroski describes how both english consumers purchased china in droves, and contemporary publications reported on them. how:

It was in the pages of these papers that the growing popularity of Chinese things in the early eighteenth century acquired the reputation of a “craze”; they portrayed china fanatics as flawed, fragile, and unreliable characters, and frequently cast chinoiserie itself in the same light.

referenda on fannish behavior serve as referenda on the objects of their devotion, and vice versa. as the difference between identity and fetish collapses, they come to be treated as one and the same by not just participants but their observers.

at what point does mxtx fic cease to be chinese?

--------------------

finally, it seems readily apparent that attitudes towards chinese objects may in fact have something to do with attitudes about china as a country. i do not want to suggest that these literary concerns are primarily motivated and begot by forces entirely divorced from the real mechanics of power.

here, i want to bring in edward said, and his 1993 culture and imperialism. there, he explains how power and legitimacy go hand in hand. one is direct, and one is purely cultural. he originally wrote this in response to the outsize impact that british novelists have had in the maintenance of empire and throughout decolonization. literature, he argues, gives rise to powerful narratives that constrain our ability to think outside of them.

there’s a little bit of an inversion at play here. these are chinese novels, actually. but they’re being transformed by white narratives and artists. and just as i think the form of the novel is important to said’s critique, i think there’s something to be said about the form that fic takes and how it legitimates itself.

bound up in fandom is the idea that you have a right to create and transform as you please. it is a nice idea, but it is one that is directed towards a certain kind of asymmetry. that is, one where the author has all the power. this is the narrative we hear a lot in the history of fandom⁠—litigious authors and plucky fans, fanspaces always under attack from corporate sanitization.

meanwhile, said builds upon raymond schwab’s narrative of cultural exchange between european writers and cultural products outside the imperial core. said explains that fundamental to these two great borrowings (from greek classics and, in the so-called “oriental renaissance” of the late 18th, early 19th centuries from “india, china, japan, persia, and islam”) is asymmetry.

he had argued prior, in orientalism, that any “cultural exchange” between “partners conscious of inequality” always results in the suffering of the people. and here, he describes how “texts by dead people were read, appreciated, and appropriated” without the presence of any actual living people in that tradition.

i will not understate that there is a certain economic dynamic complicating this particular fannish asymmetry. mxtx has profited materially from the success of her works, most fans will not. also secondly, mxtx is um. not dead. LMAO.

but first, the international dynamic of extraction that said described is still present. i do not want to get overly into white attitudes towards china in this post, because i am already thoroughly derailed, but i do believe that they structure how white cnovel fandom encounters this texts.

at any rate, any profit she receives is overwhelmingly due to her domestic popularity, not her international popularity. (i say this because many of her international fans have never given her a cent. in fact, most of them have no real way to.) and moreover, as we talk about the structure of english-language fandom, what does it mean to create chinese cultural products without chinese people?

as white people take ownership over their versions of stories, do we lose something? what narratives about engagement with cnovels might exist outside of the form of classic fandom?

i think a lot of people get the relationship between ideas (the superstructure) and production (the base) confused. oftentimes they will lob in response to criticism, that look! this fic, this fandom, these people are so niche, and so underrepresented in mainstream culture, that their effects are marginal. i am not arguing that anyone’s cql fic causes imperialism. (unless you’re really annoying. then it’s anyone’s game)

i’m instead arguing something a little bit different. i think, given similar inputs, you tend to get similar outputs. i think we live in the world that imperialism built, and we have clear historical predecessors in terms of white appetites for creating, consuming, and transforming chinese objects.

we have already seen, in the case of the fan language meme that began this post, that sometimes we even prefer this white chinoiserie. after all, isn’t it beautiful, too?

i want to bring discomfort to this topic. i want to reject the paradigm of white subject and chinese object; in fact, here in this essay, i have tried to reverse it.

if you are taken aback by the comparisons i make here, how can you make meaningful changes to your fannish practice to address it?

--------------------

some concluding thoughts on the matter, because i don’t like being misunderstood!

i am not claiming white fans cannot create fanworks of cnovels or be inspired by asian art or artists. this essay is meant to elaborate on the historical connection between victorian england and cnovel characters and fandom that others have already popularized.

i don’t think people who make victorian jokes are inherently bad or racist. i am encouraging people to think about why we might make them and/or share them

the connections here are meant to be more provocative than strictly literal. (e.g. i don’t literally think writing fanfic is a 1-1 descendant of japanning). these connections are instead meant to 1) make visible the baggage that fans of color often approach fandom with and 2) recontextualize and defamiliarize fannish practice for the purposes of honest critique

please don’t turn this post into being about other different kinds of discourse, or into something that only one “kind” of fan does. please take my words at face value and consider them in good faith. i would really appreciate that.

please feel free to ask me to clarify any statements or supply more in-depth sources :)

#x #-__- another fandom essay sorry

1K notes · View notes

shadeops21 · 2 years ago

Text

Top Gun, aircraft identification, and advice for fan-writers and fan-artists.

Heyo, class is in session. This is going to be aimed towards primarily fanfic writers who want to include little details in their fics, and for fan-artists who want to do “accurate” aircraft representation in their works.

We’re going to talk about aircraft identification. Specifically related to the Super Hornet and markings. There are small nuances and details that are easy to overlook, but likely to have any extremely picky aircraft nerd on alert if they’re missed or mis-done.

Class is under the cut.

Let’s take a look at an example aircraft, shall we?

Can you count how many markings are on that aircraft?

If you counted 12-13 (one is on there twice), then award yourself a point. If not, then listen up. We’re going to work from nose to tail here.

There are four markings here, three of which are what I’d consider “critical” markings if you want to be accurate.

1 - Modex Number. Modex numbers, or simply Modex’s, are used to denote the squadron’s mission and specific aircraft in a squadron. Ripping from Wikipedia here, but the first number of a modex is used to denote mission type, while the last two are the aircraft itself. 1xx through to 4xx are used for Strike Fighter squadrons, typically those that fly F/A-18E/F or F-35C in the Navy and/or Marine Corps. 5xx is for Electronic Attack squadrons, flying the EA-18G Growler. Most squadrons will have twelve aircraft, so you’ll see numbers like 511 and 205 printed on them, but not 566 or 154. Additionally, these numbers are distinctly visible on them, as they are key for identification.

2 - Pilot name. Just below the cockpit is where the name of the pilot (and WSO for F-models) is printed. Typically, it’ll be the abbreviation of the rank, and either the first initial(s) or full first name and surname of the pilot, with their callsign or position below. Here’s a higher resolution example on an F-model Super Hornet. However, a caveat is that pilots don’t exclusively fly “their” jet during their career. It’s subject to whichever aircraft are available that day, depending on sorties and maintenance scheduling.

3 - Roundel. Below the canopy and under the leading edge extension is the roundel, which for the US is that star with the striped ribbon on either side. This is the most important marking on the jet as it allows the aircraft to be visually identified as being operated and owned by the United States of America. 90% of tactical aircraft’s roundels are subdued in nature as not to be immediately overt from a distance, though there are special aircraft liveries where the full colour roundel is displayed.

4 - Crew Chief name. This one isn’t a deal-breaker marking, as it’s something really only seen on the ground and by ground crews. The lead maintainer of the aircraft has their name on the jet, and unlike the pilot, they are the one “responsible” for the aircraft. It’s joked among pilots and ground crews that the jet really belongs to the crew chief, and that the pilot is only borrowing it from them.

That’s the nose covered, now onto the “spine”:

There are three markings here.

1 - Squadron ID code. The squadron identifier is written on the aircraft as another way to identify who the jet belongs to in a pinch. Each letter of that code relates to a designation:

V - Fixed Wing, H for Helicopter/Rotor Wing F - Fighter A - Attack FA - Strike Fighter AQ - Electronic Attack AW - Airborne Warning P - Patrol & Recon Q - Fleet Reconnaissance RC - Logistics Support T - Training X - Air Test & Evaluation

The number simply represents that specific squadron. So, the above example would be Strike Fighter Squadron Eighty-Six. It’s not like how the US Air Force name squadrons, like the 94th Fighter Squadron.

2 - Danger Air Intake marking. It’s partially hidden by the weapon’s pylon, but the air intake does have a warning diamond to indicate the danger from air sucked into the intake. It has happened in the past where deck crew have wandered too close to an aircraft’s intake and get sucked in. Again, these are low-vis subdued, but these were traditionally painted bright RED.

3 - On the front of the fuel drop tank, some squadrons embellish their tanks with squadron-specific markings. Not all squadrons do this, but some do. Some go small like the snake seen in the main image, while others go more bold. Again, not a major deal breaker: research the squadron and you’ll see if they do it on their drops or not.

And now onto the tail and rear. We’ll work top to bottom here:

1 - Modex. We covered this on the nose section, so we’ll move on.

2 - Squadron Marking. Alongside the identifier on the spine, all aircraft will have “artwork” that denotes their squadron, and it’s typically pulled from the squadron’s insignia patch. This is where you have a lot of variation, as some squadrons are low-key in their marking type while others are a lot more flashy, even if they are subdued in colour. Some squadron’s tail markings are very distinct and have the accompanying notoriety. Above is a sidewinder snake, for the eponymous VFA-86 “Sidewinders”. A few more examples are below:

VFA-143 Pukin’ Dogs

VFA-41 Black Aces

VFA-151 Vigilantes

3 - Air Wing Identifier. This is the two-letter code seen beside the squadron identifier, and like the alphabetic squadron code seen on the spines, these letters also have meaning. They’re used to denote which air wing the aircraft is currently assigned to, which is why if you look at a squadron’s aircraft pictures across a long period of time you’ll note that these letters (and the modex numbers) change.

A/N refer to the fleet, A being Atlantic Fleet and N for the Pacific Fleet. The second code relates to the carrier the air wing is embarked upon.

Using the pictures I’ve posted above as reference, here are some examples:

AC - Air Wing Three, USS Dwight D Eisenhower (Atlantic Fleet) AG - Air Wing Seven, USS George H.W. Bush (Atlantic Fleet) NH - Air Wing Eleven, USS Theodore Roosevelt (Pacific Fleet) NG - Air Wing Nine, USS Abraham Lincoln (Pacific Fleet).

4 - Carrier Assignment. Below the tail in small print is the name of the carrier that squadron (and air wing) is embarked upon. Pretty self explanatory.

5 - NAVY. Branch marking, also self explanatory. Note that USMC aircraft will have MARINES printed there instead.

6 - Serial Number. Located under the rear elevator fin, this six digit number is the aircraft’s unique serial number, which remains unchanged even if the aircraft itself is transferred to another squadron.

I hope I haven’t lost you yet, as I’ve got a few more things to quickly point out.

You may notice in your own research that some aircraft aren’t painted in low-vis markings like the ones I’ve shown here, and that some are fully decorated out. These are typically the “CAG” and “CO” aircraft, painted as such to foster esprit de corps within the squadron and air wing. CAG aircraft (given modex numbers of x00) are the aircraft “reserved” for the Commander of the Air Group (Air wing commander, essentially). Likewise, the “CO” birds are painted in a less-lively livery and given modex numbers of x01, and are reserved for the “Commanding Officer” of the squadron. Here are some examples:

VFA-103 Jolly Rogers CAG Bird

VFA-41 Black Aces CAG Bird

VFA-2 Bounty Hunters CAG Bird

VFA-11 Red Rippers CAG and CO aircraft

And last thing. Those off-yellow lines that you can see on the nose, vertical tail, and above the NAVY marking? They’re formation markers, and can be activated to glow at different brightness depending on situation requirements. Here’s how it looks at night/low light:

Hope this has helped educate my budding writers and artists! Any questions, don’t hesitate to leave a note, reblog with an @, or send me an ask.

#Top Gun: Maverick #top gun maverick #top gun #maverick #aviation

75 notes · View notes

escachromepb · 2 years ago

Note

[IDs: Screenshots which read "I recommend them with caveats. From a gameplay perspective, I recommend all of the games starting with Sherlock Holmes Versus Jack the Ripper (2009) through to Sherlock Holmes Chapter One (2021). The earlier ones have charm but are so clunky and softlock-level buggy that they can really only be enjoyed by people already into 90s and early 2000s adventure games enough to find that sort of thing fun. I have played a lot of mystery and detective games, and Sherlock Holmes: Crimes & Punishments is probably the closest to my “dream” detective game for adults that I have played. While there is the occasional annoying QTE or puzzle, they don’t detract much and the core investigation and deduction gameplay are both really fun and the cases are the most complex and satisfying to solve out of all the games. I had a huge amount of fun spending hours discussing clues and possible culprits while playing it with my sister and it is my recommendation for the game to start with. The chronology doesn’t really matter, though it is important to play The Testament of Sherlock Holmes before Sherlock Holmes: The Devil’s Daughter. There is a lot of funny dialog throughout the series, both intentionally and by accident, and the graphics are fine. If you want something largely true to the Arthur Conan Doyle canon, play Crimes & Punishments. If you like campy Sherlock adaptations, play The Testament or Chapter one. However, the series has some serious issues to know before playing them. Wikipedia cites reviewers of Sherlock Holmes Chapter One as criticizing its “inability to tackle social issues with grace,” which is a polite way of putting a problem that all of the games have- that they include offensive content for the sake of “accuracy” and just generally handle most anything you can think of poorly. There are gory moments of murder, sexual violence and suicide which are framed in harmful and potentially triggering ways. In some of the games they try and fail to not be racist, or antisemitic, or sexist, (or classist, or ableist, or homophobic, or transphobic…), and in some of them they do not seem to try at all. There are stereotypes and offensive language throughout, and there is a tirade near the end of Jack the Ripper that stands out to me as particularly homophobic and sexist among just video games in general. Also, while playing judge, juror and executioner is absolutely true to Sherlock’s character, it can feel pretty gross at times. There is also a major queerbaiting issue but I am sure that is no surprise and I personally find it funny enough to be a highlight. Overall I really like them and think they are worth playing (particularly if you can buy them on sale) but go into them knowing there is some harmful stuff."]

I've BEEN THINKING of playing the frogwares sherlock holmes games (and already own crimes and punishments, which I just can't play because I need a graphics card😭) and I'm wondering before i commit if they're like. fun to play. obvi the games all differ but would u actually recommend them...I guess. also how did u get into them?

VERY GOOD QUESTION. I would say, for playability’s sake, that chapter one was the most intuitive to play and was pretty fun for the most part (the worst part of the game gameplay-wise is a totally avoidable treasure hunt). I appreciated the addition of the open world and side quests, even if it’s still a little sparse when pitted against bigger games like Yakuza or GTA. Made me laugh a lot for all the wrong reasons, like their obsession with quoting Shakespeare and the mere existence of Jon, Sherlock’s new and hot imaginary friend. Content warning for rape and the occasional jarring racist, transphobic, sanist, or sexist comment. Jarring because they claim it's for "period accuracy" but it's also the least period accurate late Victorian era game that's possibly ever been made, and it's not handled with any tact.

I've only played SH:ch. 1 and The Awakened all the way through (I started Jack the Ripper recently though). One of my besties @escachromepb got me into the games and has played most of them, so I asked and here’s what escachromepb said:

I am seconding the queerbaiting, I think it made the two I’ve played, ESPECIALLY chapter one, all the more enjoyable

Thank you for asking!!! ALSO i don’t know what computer you’d be playing with but my newish Dell (non-gaming) laptop has a chronic overheating issue and chapter one is its sworn enemy. It has an autosave feature which is awesome because it crashed... a lot. for reference, i’ve been able to play re2make and other new, graphics intensive games without issue, so I’m not sure why my laptop hates Frogwares so much. If you have an older computer, or a computer that sucks like mine does, I fear it is not going to be a smooth ride. Ok i’m done for real now haha thanks again

#I have played all of them but I haven't finished all of the early ones due to softlocks #can you tell?

8 notes · View notes

crownlessliestheking · 3 years ago

Text

Is the Silm Grimdark?

In which I discuss this, for fun, and explore the idea. This is not an essay or a sophisticated thinkpiece, this is me collecting information and then thinking aloud at myself. There might be quotes! There might not! I don’t know yet. I am aware that Tolkien would not have intended it to be read as grimdark. I am aware that thematically, this is not what jirt was about. I’m not really trying to convince anyone of anything so much as I am trying to convince myself, or just take these and see what conclusions I end up at and examine this from a bunch of different angles, since I’m chronically incapable of doing it any other way. Since this is like 5,000 words, it’s under a read more. It...ballooned.

To preface, I don’t think that grimdark fiction is necessarily a bad genre, and I definitely don’t mind it when it’s done well. I also suspect that my definition of grimdark fiction might be a little unique, so I won’t just be basing this on my own subjective views- at least not at first. This goes for the characters as well; while I’ve tried to stick close to canon, there is little doubt in my mind that both fanon and my own headcanons will seep in when I’m discussing some of them- particularly the Feanorians.

The definitions are quotes from the Wikipedia article on grimdark, since they summarize it well; actual sources are included down below if you want to take a closer look at them! 3/4 are actually book reviews, the Roberts one is a book. So! Let’s get going: what is grimdark, and do any definitions of it fit the Silmarillion?

Might is Right

Definition: Adam Roberts describes grimdark as a genre "where nobody is honourable and Might is Right.” To him, it is "the standard way of referring to fantasies that turn their backs on the more uplifting, Pre-Raphaelite visions of idealized medievaliana, and instead stress how nasty, brutish, short and, er, dark life back then 'really' was". But this comes with the caveat that grimdark is not interested in re-imagining historic reality, and focuses instead on the sense that our world is a “cynical, disillusioned, ultraviolent place".

Does this jive with the Silmarillion? I would say emphatically not. While lives are certainly cut short, and while the world has been marred/darkened, it would be incorrect to say that all of the characters’ lives to follow that Hobbesian philosophy, or that any of them in-universe felt this way about themselves. At least, not textually, but fanon and headcanon will do what they will, I think. Perhaps if you were an orc, or a thrall in Angband, or an unnamed elf with little plot importance, it would be different. The Edain certainly did suffer- but even in these cases, the focus is not on how miserable they are when they’re alive. The story does not dwell on these minutiae, even if we can extrapolate that it exists. Certainly, characters are not disproportionately rewarded for being powerful- the elves that are very skilled combatants do not have this set out as the only thing good about them. It’s not a redeeming quality, and even with characters like Rog, who are counted as the strongest of the Noldor (at least he was in the Book of Lost Tales), it’s not the strength that matters, it’s what he does with it. Similarly, Maedhros is noted for his daring deeds during the Siege of Angband, but the details on those are sketchy- instead, the Silm tells us that Morgoth was penned in, and that there was peace for a time because of those deeds- they were more an act of protection, than anything else. (And, arguably, prudence, so no Feanorians started any shit with others.) And, well. The greatest and rather most obvious repudiation of might is right is simply that Morgoth does not win. Morgoth is not glorified in an inappropriate way- he is, after all, one of the Valar, so he’s incredibly powerful, and he is the mightiest of the Valar. He kills Finwe and gets the Silmarils, but this isn’t treated as an impressive thing, rather an evil one. Even in Beleriand, when the Bragollach breaks the Siege, his triumph is cut short by Fingolfin wounding him. And that’s important, too, because it shows that he is not invulnerable, that he can be hurt, and his wounds troubled him for- well. Pretty much ever, after that.

Might and power are not what the Silm emphasizes as good traits, and powerful characters who do morally grey (or straight up bad!) things are not rewarded accordingly. You might argue that Tolkien had a fairy tale view of what was Good and what was Evil, but I think that the Silm does blur those lines. And even in those not considered good, what Tolkien values and praises about them- at least in characters described as great- is creation, and then later, preservation. Evidenced by Feanor (greatest of the Noldor, despite eveything!), evidenced by Celebrimbor and Galadriel and Elrond, and the use of the Three. This is not particularly grimdark.

Dark Realism and Psychology

To Genevieve Valentine, grimdark a "shorthand for a subgenre of fantasy fiction that claims to trade on the psychology of those sword-toting heroes, and the dark realism behind all those kingdom politics". As the source for this quote is a review, she says “the Land Fit for Heroes is as grim and as dark as it gets [...] the structure of the books allows for nothing else.” She does make a note that the book in question states that power corrupts absolutely, and- I have not read The Land Fit for Heroes, but that not entirely out of line with what Tolkien stated (especially power taken for the dominion of others, rather than given, and used lightly). She also notes that it focuses on hyper-violence and cycles of violence treated casually, the same with sex and sexual violence. Which, while it may be specific to the work being reviewed, the realism element is present in other definitions and so is being included here.

Once more, this does not agree with the Silm. It’s actually somewhat difficult to elaborate on, given the narrative style of the Silmarillion. It focuses so much on big events and reads as myth that there is little room for a focus on the details of politics- beyond isolationism in Doriath and Gondolin, and tensions over the Kingship of the Noldor- and even that reads as a brotherly conflict between Feanor and Fingolfin, and is then resolved...simply. Maedhros abdicates, the kingship passes to Fingolfin’s line for the sake of unity, and no Feanorian is recorded as having tried to scheme to take it back like we might see in a more contemporary, darker setting. It’s simply given away, and this is accepted.

Similarly, the story does not give very much insight into the psyche of many characters- a lot of what we have is extrapolation from a few lines, from events. There’s no angst in the sense of getting a blow-by-blow for what a certain character is thinking at a given time, especially when they’re suffering. It simply tells us that they are being tormented, and that’s that. Even in CoH, where Turin has a bad fucking time all the time, every single moment of grief and horror is not put under a magnifying glass for our viewing pleasure. Certainly, there is a lot of grief, a lot of darkness and torture and awful, awful things, but it does not treat them casually, or as so normal in this world that they can be considered par for course. They happen, but they are condemned in universe.

As to the sex- well. That’s a non-starter as well, and I do not think the NoME would shed any light on that beyond some seriously confusing math that was probably never meant to see the light of day.

Realism, Darkness, and Agency

According to Jared Shurin, grimdark fantasy has three key components: a grim and dark tone, a sense of realism, and the agency of the protagonists. Heroes are flawed, kings are useless, and rather than a sense of pre-destination and how the characters will prevail, they actively have to choose between good and evil, and are “just as lost as we are.” He goes on to say, “But with grimdark, the future is mucky and undefined - evil could very well win. Perhaps that's the most realistic part of the genre. Or perhaps that's the grimmest - there's no longer a cosmic safety net for either the characters or the readers. Anything can happen [...] Characters weren't being rewarded as the tradition demanded, instead their decisions - whether Good or Bad - brought them the appropriate, in-world consequences. This is the randomness of real life, coupled with a sort of karmic brilliance: there's a casual link between choices and conclusions.”

Now this is where we start to see elements that are present in the Silmarillion. From the second that they enter Beleriand, from the second that Feanor just dies- and he’s been set up as the protagonist of that part of the Silm, in a way, we are to an extent on his side and rooting for him-, things start to go wrong. Right then, the future becomes undefined, the traditional narrative of a hero (a morally grey one, at that) defying the odds to achieve his goal is stopped in its tracks. Feanor is set up as so much, and he dies, just like that, before he does anything- and that’s where this element of uncertainty comes in. Feanor dies, Maedhros is captured, and things go wrong immediately. There’s no real safety net for the characters or the readers anymore.

But it’s what happens next, that contradicts this, doesn’t it. Fingon rescues Maedhros. He saves Maedhros from Thangorodrim, and yes, Maedhros loses a hand and is not the same person he once was, but he survives. The Noldor go, regardless of the Doom, but this isn’t seen as a bad thing by the narrative. Of course- the narrative in question is quite literally called the Noldolante, so that might be difficult to discern. And Maedhros abdicates, Fingolfin becomes king, and there is hope again. But only for a time. Because the Siege of Angband ends, and no matter how hopeful the elves are, it does not change the fact that Morgoth is much, much mightier than them. He doesn’t win, of course, because might is not everything. But the world is a dark place- literally, since Ungoliant consumed the light of the Trees-, and it will get darker. This is a losing battle and not all the Noldor accept it, and this brings us to the Doom.

Shurin says that part of grimdark literature is about agency and choice, that characters must make decisions, and face the consequences for them. And this is true, but in a world like the Silmarillion, where the question of fate versus free will almost always is answered by fate, how much agency do these characters have? The Doom of the Noldor outlines the woes to come right at the beginning- and agency or not, there is the sense that there is going to be no hope there. There’s going to be no help from the Valar, the gods are quite literally not listening to any prayers. And the Noldor, Finarfin’s host excepted, do not care. They accept this fate, they say ‘not today’, and they go forth to their doom- some more immediate than others. Arguably this too is grimdark in a sense- they use their agency and they make a choice, and they suffer for it with their destiny hanging over their heads.

Now, where does the Oath fit into this? It is not a prophecy, but it shapes the Feanorians in an undeniable way. Their fate is that their deeds will be twisted to bad ends, and that’s exactly what happens. It causes them to do awful things, it turns them from heroes to villains, and it does this in a way that makes their agency questionable. Fans (myself included) like to characterize them as being tormented by the Oath, as not having a choice about it, but the text does demonstrate that they’re able to choose to some extent- they try diplomacy with Dior, they do not attack Luthien while she has the Silmaril. And they choose to go after the Silmaril that Beren had gotten, instead of the other two that are in Morgoth’s crown. Is this really a choice? I don’t know. Is it a choice between good and evil? Between bad and worse? Between certain death and evil deeds? Probably all of the above. But Shurin points out that the characters in grimdark stories are to an extent lost, and must actively choose between good and evil (although not what they will choose), and. A choice of which Silmarils to go after is made here. Certainly, they were way more likely to get that than the other two.

Either way, there’s certainly realism and realistic consequences to it- they decide to try for the Silmaril in Doriath. But why should Dior give this up? He’s not going to see that the guys who imprisoned his mother for a time deserve what’s now an heirloom of his. Fuck them, right? And they want the gem, so badly that they’re willing to kill for it- and they do. But it would be ridiculous if they all survived, so they don’t. What does this attempt at capture entail? Definitely innocents getting caught up in it too, like Elured and Elurin. But if it’s chaotic enough to lose two children, it’s chaotic enough to lose more than that. The Silmaril and Elwing escape the this final ruin of Doriath, and of course they’re going to chase after it, that’s only logical. Just as it makes sense for Elwing to make the same choice as her father and not give the Silmaril up to the people who murdered her family. Every character makes choices, in this case, and in-world, the choices have consequences. And, well. In this case, none of them are exactly good.

By this definition, the Silm is in fact grimdark, which is not the conclusion I was expecting to draw here.

Nihilism and Overturning Heroism

In a review of the same Land Fit For Heroes trilogy, Liz Bourke posits that grimdark is “a retreat into the valorisation of darkness for darkness's sake, into a kind of nihilism that portrays right action ... as either impossible or futile.” It “values its gritty realism” and “attempts to overturn long-established heroic tropes.” She also says that the nihilism is something that many people find comforting: if everything is terrible and no moral decision can either be meaningful or have any lasting effect, then it rather absolves one from trying to make things better, doesn't it?)”

There is no doubt that the Silm is morally grey. With the exception of Beren and Luthien (who are of course perfect, and rock their happy ending), almost every character- yes, even the ‘good’ ones, has done something bad. Almost all the Noldor who were in Beleriand either participated in the first Kinslaying or stood aside and implicitly condoned it by expecting to use the boats that were gained from it, although they likely later condemned it. Their personal feelings on the matter are unknown. And that’s the best of the lot. The Feanorians do much, much worse thanks to their Oath; while they might be the ‘protagonists’ in the sense that the Quenta Silmarillion centers around their quest to regain the Silmarils, they do terrible, terrible things for the sake of this goal. There’s two more kinslayings, after all, and after the Bragollach, and then the Battle of Unnumbered Tears when the Siege is broken, it goes downhill quickly. From Celegorm and Curufin’s actions in Nargothrond (both wrt Finrod and Luthien), to Doriath to Sirion, the worst of the three, where they killed those who were refugees from Gondolin, elves they may have fought with or known before, it just gets darker. And they die, too, at each of these. Celegorm, Curufin, and Caranthir die in Doriath at the Second Kinslaying, and Amrod and Amras die at the Third. By the time the War of Wrath comes along, they’re so far reduced from what they were- that Maedhros is not the same one who was the Lord of Himring, and that Maglor is not the same as the one who held the Gap. They’re not the heroes that they might have been, that’s for sure.

But there are plenty of heroic characters- Finrod, Fingon, Fingolfin (lots of Fins)- that fall into the more traditional mold. And, importantly, they all die, the latter two as a consequence of their heroic/valorous actions, while Fingon dies in battle. None of these heroes meet a good end; in the tradition of the Silm, their deaths are pretty fucking awful, actually.

...And then there’s Turin. His story is arguably the one that best repudiates the idea of a hero, in the traditional sense. If that doesn’t do it, then nothing will, right? Because if anyone wanted to argue that CoH is the darkest story in the Silm, I wouldn’t protest it. A lot goes on. Turin’s lot is a fucking miserable one, he’s cursed by Morgoth, and it starts bad, ends worse, and he either kills or causes the deaths of everyone that he loves. Misery chases this man for the entirety of his life, starting from the death of his younger sister and- well. Also ending with the death of another sister. He flees Doriath, he falls in with outlaws, he gets betrayed and accidentally kills Beleg (his lover/best friend, who followed him from Doriath). He gives himself edgier and edgier names, going from The Wronged (Neithan) to Dread-Helm (Gorthol) to Blood-Stained, son of Ill-Fate (Agarwaen, son of Úmarth) to Black Sword (Mormegil). None of these titles would be out of place in a more grimdark novel, I’ll tell you that much. And despite having killed Beleg, when he’s in Nargothrond, things are not all bad. He’s influential, he has power with Orodreth, Finduilas loves him. And then the dragon comes, in part because he convinced Orodreth to abandon secrecy, although Nargothrond would likely have been found out anyway, if we’re being fair. The dragon comes, and Turin falls under its spell, and he leaves to rescue his mother and sister (who are fine), abandoning Finduilas to her fate. He goes home, finds it changed, finds an Easterling lord and kills him, ostensibly to save his kinswoman, but he seals her fate as well, because she burns herself alive, and things are made worse for the House of Hador. He goes back, finds out Finduilas has died, but he manages to recover, and he calls himself the Master of Fate. He decides that his curse is over, except it’s not, because he marries his sister, the dragon comes back, and she kills herself when she realizes what happened. He slays Glaurung, refusing to believe the truth, and kills the one who tells him. It’s only when Mablung repeats it, that he believes it, and we know how this story ends, too. So- dark in tone, miserable, and awful. Turin is no classic hero- everything that he does goes wrong, no matter how good his intentions are. Nor is it his curse that he will do evil, the real curse is that regardless of what he does, evil will come of it. No matter what he chooses- and he chooses a lot-, bad things happen because of his agency. And agency is an important thing, as per the previous section.

He still has hope through the entire thing- important to note, because he still tries, he still wants to do some good, he does not stop trying, but in the end, he gives in to his curse, and to despair. It is, of course, important to note that Turin is not deliberately cruel, nor does he relish in the things that he’s done, or what has happened because of him. He’s not amoral, and he certainly is not a villain. So while he fits the mold of overturning the idea of the classical hero, his tale is- despite its grimdark elements, given the ending and the contents- more of a tragedy, than anything else.

Tone, Rewards, and Punishment

That’s all well and good, but I don’t think that any one of these really encompasses what grimdark is, although they do provide very good guidelines. So I’m going to go with a far more subjective definition- ie, mine-, and definitions graciously provided by folk over at the SWG.

Grimdark fantasy is, to me, when bad things happen to good people, ostensibly because they are good, or are trying to be good and do the right thing. It is cynical, as in Roberts’ definition, but there is nihilism involved, in knowing that whatever you do, it will not end well, as in Bourke’s. For me, it’s more about the tone, about how characters are rewarded and punished in universe, and why. Are good acts punished solely because they’re good? Is the only way to survive and thrive to be wholeheartedly awful- and is this glorified? Is it rewarded as an in universe reason, that makes sense, or is it simply ‘yes, they were the worst so of course they’re going to come out on top’, with no consequences whatsoever? If they give up their humanity, is it praised as the only right decision, or is there a sense of loss surrounding it?

I will admit that the Witcher books have shaped my definition of grimdark considerably- and I would absolutely consider them grimdark, rather than GRRM’s work (and not just because we don’t know how ASOIAF will end, or what will happen. I don’t think it will have a happy ending, but I also don’t think that gory details and ultraviolent realism a grimdark story makes. But that’s a discussion for another day.) This definition is expanded by insight from the SIlmarillion Writer’s Guild server- Anoriath made the excellent point of “whether or not there’s any hope. Bad things happen. They can be explored in graphic detail. There doesn’t have to be a happy ending. The angst and awfulness can be unrelenting. But is hope part of the narrative? Even if not for yourself, then for other people after you? Or is despair and meaninglessness the only position taken by the narrative- rational or not?” Chestnut used ASOIAF and GRRM (yes! I know I said I don’t find it grimdark but the point is an important one) as an example and brought up that it has to do with “the narrative stance on human worth and meaning [...] at no point does the narrative tell us that to have done good once, have tried ad failed to do good, to have done what seemed to be good but turned out to be harmful, is worthwhile; indeed, that stance is laughable. [.... ] GRRM says that pain and suffering and evil are meaningless and negate human worth in perpetrators and victims.” They also point out that it is “fundamentally antipolitical” and “elevates cynicism and stasis over the potential for meaningful changes, however small.”

So. Does this happen in the Silm?

Again, kind of. There absolutely are characters who are punished, narratively, for doing the right thing and being good- and this is very much an in universe consequence of their actions. Fingolfin goes to fight Morgoth- and he dies. Finrod keeps his promise to Beren, goes to help, and he dies. Glorfindel fights for the refugees leaving Gondolin, he kills a Balrog- but at the last minute, he too dies. Elwing, likely thinking that her sons are dead, knowing that the ones who killed her parents are now here for her and for the Silmaril, tries to prevent them from taking it the only way she knows how- and Earendil, who journeyed West to find his parents, eventually ends up with the Silmaril (and his wife!) but they aren’t able to meet their children again (presumably until Elrond sails). But- yes, that’s shaky, so who else is there? Maglor does the right thing and casts the Silmaril away, knowing how much death it has caused, but he’s still left alone, all his brothers and his father dead, fated to either wander the shores or fade until he’s nothing but an echo on the wind. You could argue that’s selfishly motivated, though, but there are still two strong examples of this: Celebrimbor, and Manwe.

I’ll discuss Celebrimbor first, because his is the clearest example. It’s a new age, the troubles of the First Age are over (allegedly), and the last descendent of Feanor is out here, trying to crawl out from under the weight of that name. He’s rejected his father, he managed to come out the other side of the First Age, and what does he do? He creates. He decides to hell with secrecy, he decides to share his knowledge with whoever wants it, and work to make the world a better place. And it works, until Annatar comes along, until Rings are made, until he’s betrayed and the One is forged, he dies a horrible death, and another evil is unleashed. His choice to be different- to try to be better than his family- is considered as the reason he was fooled when everyone else vetoed Annatar coming to them. This is kindness, is an open hand and heart, being punished for just that.

Manwe too, is punished for his kindness, or his naivete, however you want to frame it. I know there’s many different takes on him, some much kinder than others, but this will be in the lens of how I see him. That is, as a character whose nature is to be good, to be just, to see the world in the best possible light. He is very much lawful good aligned, to say the least. So when he unchains his brother, he cannot conceive that Melkor is lying to him. The idea of this is foreign, and- why should he not believe Melkor, when he claims to have repented after so long? When it is clear that he can be put back in chains by Tulkas when needed? And, maybe more to the point, he doesn’t want Melkor to actually be evil forever, to the extent that he’s willing to overlook what any of us would consider common sense. But he lets Melkor loose, and the consequences are astounding in how they snowball.

We see this type of character over and over, someone trying to do good or remaining good/faithful in circumstances that are all against them, whether they know it or not. Celebrimbor, Turin (for different reasons), even Maedhros, at the Nirnaeth, and Tar-Miriel, in Numenor. Though importantly, none of them are mocked for their initial mistakes. It’s spoken of with regret, with foreshadowing, weary and maybe a little bitter, but there’s no gotcha moment that flips it on the reader.

And, speaking of Miriel, there’s the Akallabeth. Which is not framed as a grimdrk story (although this makes it all the more horrifying in a way, because it outright says ‘they deserved it, there is nothing wrong with everyone, even innocents drowning’), but has the elements of almost all the definitions. Might is in fact right, because it’s Pharazon’s armies that bring Sauron to heel. There’s political scheming and sacrifice and the acceleration of a slow corruption, abandoning the gods and seeking out immortality because why should the Elves have it, and not the Men? Who’s the hero of that tale, anyway? Not Tar-Miriel, who dies, and suffers as one of jirt’s nebulous female characters. Sauron? Ar-Pharazon? There are certainly more mentions of politics and imperialism here than anywhere else, given the state of Numenor at the time, although again, the same caveats apply with respect to Pharazon’s characterization. I will say that we learn more about him- and about the Men of Numenor, and why they want to live forever. There’s a sense of entitlement to it (one more fascinating when you realize that they were gifted long life because they straight up asked for it, after the War of Wrath, at least in one of the notes in the NoME), and this idea that if they want it, they can have it, all they need to do is take it. However, they don’t succeed, and this is framed as ultimately wrong, and bad, because we all know that Hubris Very Bad, and the narrative does not sympathize with Pharazon in the slightest, but condemns him. It condemns all of Numenor, in fact, because it highlights specifically the decline from the time of Elros, straight down to Ar-Pharazon, and shows their corruption. It is also fascinating that Eru appears twice to act directly- once in the Ainunindale, and another here. Once to create, and again to destroy. But, again, food for thought another time, because that’s not grimdark, although it straddles the line of nihilism without the context of the Music of the Ainur from earlier on. But in terms of tone, the Akallabeth is dark, to be sure, but there’s no mockery in it, just censure. It is a treatise on why these people deserved it, and one that ignores the horror of what actually happened,. It doesn’t relish it, not even in a karmic sense. It’s more of a warning, than a victory ode. Still, is that a surprise, given that it was in-universe written by the survivors?

And that, perhaps, is why it isn’t grimdark. There are survivors. The Faithful, the good Numenoreans, they survive, and they go on to found Gondor and Arnor and so on. Manwe does not change, because he still represents the good and justice in the world, Authority as it should be. Celebrimbor holds out and the Three remain hidden. Hope, yet again.

Conclusions

The world itself is dark, there’s no question about that, but as the narrative does not choose to focus entirely on that, it’s difficult to call the Silm truly grimdark? It would not be incorrect to say that the setting is grimdark, that events are, that bad things happen to good people, but the narrative (despite Pengolodh’s best efforts to be smug at Maeglin’s fate) does not delight in it, or try to hammer this home as a lesson. It does not say ‘don’t try to be good, don’t try to be a hero, because you’ll only ever meet a bad end and it won’t make a difference, anyway.’ No one told Finrod that, and it his end was bad, but it made a difference; no one told Glorfindel that, nor any of the Lords of Gondolin, their deaths were heroic, and tragic, and it made a difference; and certainly no one told Fingon that, but he believed, right to the end. Tolkien has written many of his characters as fundamentally good, if flawed (extremely flawed) in some cases, though their deeds end in tragedy- and though they do terrible things.

Arguably in other hands, this could be treated as grimdark. There would be much more dwelling on the Oath and what it did to the Feanorians; the three kinslayings would be more detailed- or perhaps treated much more casually, rather than having characters know that this is wrong; there would be no Silmaril for Elwing to take the Earendil, and that star would not light the skies as a very real point of hope, a literal light in the darkness. What went on in Angband would become torture porn, more like than not, especially with respect to Maedhros, Gwindor, and Maeglin- and even Hurin, if you consider it.

It is dark, both tonally and thematically, and arguably there are some elements of grimdark in it, but Tolkien’s lack of interest in detailed battles and glorification of war prevent it from going all the way there. He doesn’t relish these things; the narrative does not relish it. The Silm is a tragedy, but it doesn’t savor its tragic nature. It doesn’t point and laugh at the reader for hoping that it could be different- because the characters hope, right to the last minute. The work grieves for them, and so can we. Not all the characters are heroes, but the heroes are there- Glorfindel and Finrod are both reincarnated relatively quickly, Fingon quite literally rescues Maedhros from the heart of darkness when all hope is lost, the dragons Glaurung and Ancalagon are slain, and Morgoth and Sauron both defeated. Hope’s baked right into that narrative, baby, and the idea of estel as foolish hope, beyond any logic, is a defining trait of Tolkien’s work and the antithesis of grimdark.

Citations for the Grimdark Definitions and another thing that was super interesting:

The Adam Roberts definition comes from his book via Wikipedia: Roberts, Adam (2014). Get Started in: Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy. Hachette UK. p. 42. ISBN 9781444795660. I did not read the book, I just wanted the definition.

https://www.npr.org/2015/01/25/378611261/for-a-taste-of-grimdark-visit-the-land-fit-for-heroes (Genevieve Valentine’s definition)

https://www.pornokitsch.com/2015/01/new-releases-the-goblin-emperor-by-katherine-addison.html (Jared Shurin’s definition)

http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/reviews/the-dark-defiles-by-richard-morgan/ (Liz Bourke’s definition)

https://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/on-grittiness-grimdark/ (A really good read on why grimdark often goes wrong)

I would also like to give a huge shoutout to the SWG server for providing both a great, nuanced discussion and much more information about the history of the term ‘grimdark’ as satire in Warhammer (thank you janeways!).

#silmarillion #tolkien #tolkien meta #lotr #long post

61 notes · View notes

birdsareblooming · 4 years ago

Text

Sonic may actually be lost royalty

I keep going down these rabbit holes I shouldn’t go down BUT! Although this theory is one that I don’t fully believe in (unlike the infinite/solaris theory and the chaos emerald theory) I still have a good argument that I want to talk about very bad.

I also tried to make this as short as possible but there’s a lot of ground to cover, but at least it’s not the infinite/solaris theory. But I have a TLDR at the end.

[Spoiler Warning for Sonic and the Black Knight]

let’s start with a ✨numbered list✨

1. Blaze the Cat

Blaze is the biggest caveat for this theory, but I think it’s best to start with her.

Now, firstly I need to clear up some things.

[Eggman: My world...]

[Eggman Nega: and my world...]

[Eggmen: are in a manner, inextricably linked!]

[Blaze: Like two Eggmans?]

Part of the Blaze’s world is that it’s a parallel universe. Parallel Eggmen, Parallel emeralds, Everything else that isn’t stated outright. Like how Tails and Marine are definitely counterparts. Seeming as Tails came from South Island and Marine came from southern island, Tails is definitely based on a kitsune and Marine, in theory, based on a tanuki.

And, although not stated completely, Blaze and Sonic are universal counterparts.

[From Sonic Wiki: Blaze was designed as a charater who was equivalent yet and alternate version of Sonic’s character.]

Much like the Sol and Chaos emeralds, Sonic and Blaze are a mirror version of one another, although slightly different.

Alright, now that we have that out of the way:

Looking at the connections between the others, Sonic and Blaze seem, a bit too different.

The Sol and Chaos emeralds fulfill the same role, although their different appearance, and have a similar story. Tails and Marine fulfill the same role, although their different appearance, and have a similar story. The Eggmen fulfill the same role, although their different appearance, and have a similar story.

Blaze and Sonic fulfill the same role, although their different appearance, and have a... completely different story.

Blaze was born to a royal family, and set to protect the Sol Emeralds and the Jeweled Scepter as her birthright, and it’s somewhat hinted that her powers may also be a birthright. Sonic, on the other hand, has no known past, and seems to have just run into the Chaos Emeralds by accident.

You could claim that Blaze does take on the role of both Sonic AND Knuckles, which is fair and stated on the wiki, however Knuckles is also never stated to be any kind of royalty, and certainly doesn’t have that kind of past, his past being one of the more tragically alone ones.

And here’s something interesting.

Time has warped our vision of Blaze. We all know her as “Princess Blaze the Cat.” But from watching Sonic Rush, her opening game... she is never mentioned to be a princess until the very end.

[Burning Blaze: As princess, it is my duty to protect the Sol Emeralds...]

From what I remember, this is the FIRST mention of her royal status.

From this game’s viewpoint, they reveal the mirror status of the dimensions. They then show both Blaze and Sonic having mirror super transformations using their emeralds, highly implying that Sonic and Blaze were mirror versions. (also this was implied already by just Blaze’s shoes.) and then it’s revealed that Blaze is royal, and a princess.

So if she’s the mirror of Sonic, what does that mean for Sonic? Especially right after showing the two of them being, well, mirrors.

2. King Arthur

SATBK is much less transparent about the counterpart universe thing.

Now this is an alternate universe, set up by Secret Rings, and surprisingly not just a story Sonic told as an elaborate excuse.

They don’t hide obivous Sonic characters being put into roles, and their in these roles for a reason.

Blaze and Silver as Percival and Galahad, the knights who quested together for the holy grail. Knuckles as Gawain literally only because of “Gawain and the Green Knight” But I respect that so much. Jet as Lamorak because of Lamorak’s fiery temper and competitiveness. Shadow as Lancelot because he’s the “closest knight to the king” stated in game (👀) Tails as a Blacksmith because that’s p much the medieval version of a mechanic. Amy as the Lady of the Lake because like. Fuck she’s the most powerful one there. (but seriously, in forces she’s shown to be the most level headed leader and strangest, especially in Sonic’s absence. As well as “sensing” that he was still alive and having a past in tarot.) And Merlina as Merlina because... well that’s a whole other theory.

(all my theories are being brought up in the post. like i know the first two were expamples of theories I fully belive in but damn this is like a avengeners, ok,)

But Sonic as King Arthur makes sense when it’s revealed. Although he wasn’t anyone’s counterpart in Secret Rings (because secrets rings was confused as hell) He is in this game, and as the ring leader of everyone following him in SATBK, it makes sense.

Although something that was never brought up...EVER is the Knight’s backstories, which are EXTREMELY important not only in Arthurian legends, but for the knights in Sonic lore. All of the knight’s mentioned backstories are important to their character, in both contexts. Although their never brought up.

*DEEP BREATH* Alright. The similarities between Sonic Character/Knight backstories.

Shadow and Lancelot have pretty simmilar backstories when getting down to it. Shadow/Lancelot were both raised for greatness, but still outshined by Sonic/Arthur. Although remaining loyal to them, even if for Shadow it’s only in times of need. Shadow doesn’t want to admit he’s a supporting role to Sonic, although Sonic generations kinda throws that Idea out of the water when Shadow cheers Sonic on while watching from the sidelines, much like early Lancelot.

For Blaze and Percival, in multiple interpretations Percival is of noble birth. Upon meeting Sonic’s Gang/The Knights, Blaze/Percival get’s inspired by their heroics and eventually joins them.

“Lancelot and Percival prove morally superior to Gawain who follows the rules of courtliness to the letter rather than the spirit.“ Is an actual quote from Wikipedia. Although it is VERY hard to find a concrete backstory for Gawain other than “separated from his home”, I think this proves enough. As well as the Gawain and the Green Knight story (in which Gawain tries to slay the green knight and then he picks up his head and says “see you in a year” is pretty representative of Knuckles constantly breaking the master emerald in a comedic light.)

Lamorak/Jet are known for challenging Arthur/Sonic to competitions.

Galahad/Silver are searching for an object/person aided by Percival/Blaze

So now that we’re all good, do you see the similarities between part one.

Although everyone else has given backstory similarities, Sonic is given none, seeming as, as far as we know, Sonic HAS no backstory.

But isn’t it interesting that King Arthur’s backstory is being lost royalty? And the secret son of the king? Wack.

3. Sonic Fucking Underground

Now, most of you are probably unfamiliar with Sonic Underground. Good.

If you’re not, you watched it as a kid and you’re nostalgic, and let me tell you I watched the entire show recently and it’s not as good as you remember.

But Sonic Underground’s quality and history could be a post on it’s own, it doesn’t matter here. What matters is the plot:

[From Sonic Wiki: Sonic, Sonia, and Manic are the children of Queen Aleena, the rightful ruler of Mobius and are pursued relentlessly by Doctor Robotnik and his bumbling bounty hunters sidekicks, Sleet and Dingo. As infants, the siblings were separated and placed in hiding to fulfill a prophecy made by the Oracle of Delphius (a spoof of the Oracle of Delphi of Ancient Greece) that the triplets would grow up to find their estranged mother, overthrow Robotnik and take their places once more as Mobius' rightful rulers.]

FORGOTTEN ROYALTY YOU SAY.

Now, Sonic Underground is VERY SEPARATED from Sonic Lore, and nothing has ever taken from it besides Manic appearing in some comics, although from what I know he’s never mentioned to be Sonic’s brother. So This is the part I always take with a grain of salt, however;

4. In conclusion/TLDR

We have Two Instances of Sonic being lost Royalty (One in a separate reality and one in a separate continuity) We have Two Instances of Dimentional Counterparts of Sonic being Royalty (Blaze and King Arthur) We have zero given backstory for Sonic We have Three instances of Sonic, or a counterpart, being royalty

And from what I remember hearing, three’s a pattern.

#sonic the hedgehog #theory #sonic theory #royalty theory #sonic rush #sonic rush adventure #sonic and the black knight #satbk #sonic underground #sonic wiki #Not only is this a deep dive into sonic #but I accidentally did a meta abput the satbk round table and their simmilarites to the og knights

345 notes · View notes

sunnyrinusstudies · 4 years ago

Text

Going FOSS: An Intro to Open-Source software for studyblr (and also some privacy related bits)

Source for Header Image

Intro & attempt at TLDR

Hey everyone! Today I’d like to tell y’all something about Open Source Software, and also Why this should matter to you! This’ll probably be the first post of a series I intend to do, because I believe the Studyblr community, even the non-nerd folks, could really benefit from switching some things out in their digital environment. Since this is a long post, I attempted to summarise it below, please do read on if you have the spoons tho!

TLDR?

FOSS stands for “Free and Open Source Software” the “free” part doesn’t necessarily mean it’s free as in free pizza, but mostly means free as in freedom.

There’s a humongous amount of variants on this concept, but the core of FOSS specifically is the four freedoms:

1. To run the program however you want and for whatever you want

2. To study how the program works and to change it in whatever way you want

3. To be able to share it with whomever you feel like

4. To be able to share your modified version with whomever you want

There’s a whole host of software licenses built around these concepts, you can check those out at the Open Source Initiative website, or at Choose A License. Both have a good summary of what they all stand for.

Open Source software is used for a lot of products, nearly every single webserver is an Apache Linux server, Google chrome is built on top of their open source chromium (google is still the devil, but y’know, it’s an example), and even deep deep down, Apple computers run on top of a Linux Kernel. Many more can be listed, but I won’t do that otherwise this isn’t a TLDR anymore.

Now, Why is this important for you? The Open Source Initiative summed it up real nicely already, but heres a short paraphrase:

Control & Security. If software is open source then you can check if it really works the way it does, and to make sure it’s not spying on you. Even if you don’t have the skills for it, someone else who does will be able to check. Also if you don’t like how something works in a program, then you’ll be able to change it or find someone else’s changed version that you like more.

Training. People who want to learn programming can use the code to see what makes programs tick, as well as use it as a guide for their own projects.

Stability. Because everything’s out in the open, that means someone else can take up maintaining a project or make a successor of it, in case the original developers suddenly quit working on it. This is especially important when it’s software that’s absolutely critical for certain tasks.

Community. It’s not just one program. It’s a lot of people working together to make, test, use, and promote a project they really love. Lots of projects end up with a dedicated fanbase that helps support the developers in continuing to work on the software.

I’d like to add one more tho: Privacy, which ties in a lot with the security part. Nowadays with protests going on and everything being online due to the pandemic, folks have been and will be confronted much more with the impact of privacy, and lack thereof. Open Source software means that if any company or group tries to spy on you, then you and anyone who feels like checking, will be able to know and take action on it. Here’s the EFF page on privacy and why it should matter to you

If that got your attention then read on past the readmore button! Or, if nothing else maybe check out the Free and Open Source Software portal on Wikipedia? Or maybe the resources page of the Open Source Initiative?

Terminology: Let’s get that out of the way first

Open Source: The source code that a program is made up of is freely accessible, anyone can look at it and check whether it works well enough or to make sure it doesn’t spy on you.

FOSS: Free and Open Source Software. This doesn’t mean that you don’t need to pay for it, it’s free as in freedom and free speech, not free pizza.

There are four freedoms associated with FOSS:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).

By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

FLOSS: Free and Libre Open Source Software. This time it is “free” as in free pizza. The “libre” is french for “free” as in freedom.

GRATIS: Sometimes people use this word to mean “free” as in free pizza. Usually alongside “FOSS”

Licenses : A license is something that tells others what they can or cannot do with your code. Licenses also apply to art and literature, those are copyright licenses. There are many different software licenses and I’m not going to be able to list them all.

The biggest players however are:

Apache License 2.0

The 3-Clause BSD License

GNU General Public License (also known as GPL)

MIT License

Mozilla Public License 2.0

There’s even more and you can find a list of them Here on the Open Source Initiative site There’s so many licenses that there’s even a Choose A License site, where you can pick a license depending on what you want it to achieve

Who and/or what even uses open source software?

You don’t need to be some nerd to benefit from Open Source software, in fact, you’re using open source software right now! The biggest example is the whole entire internet. Websites are stored on servers, and nearly every single webserver is a Linux server. The second biggest browser Firefox is open source, and even google chrome is built on top of “chromium” an open source base. If you dont use an iPhone, then you’re probably on an Android phone. Guess what? Android is part of the Android Open Source Project, which is then built upon a GNU/Linux base. All Open Source. Chromebooks? Built on top of a Linux kernel (like a non-patented engine you could put into any motor vehicle you’d like). Heck, even Apple computers are, at their core, built on top of a Linux kernel.

Neat apps you may wanna check out!

I’ve made a little list of apps that might be especially useful for studyblr folks, but depending on how well this post does I’ll probably make some more posts for specific apps.

TiddlyWiki, has a bajillion different ways to organise your thoughts, and also a lot of variant builds out there. Check out their table of contents if you feel lost! There’s versions available for most big browsers, as well as windows, linux, mac, android, and iOS.

AnyType, is an app that looks and almost exactly like notion, but is much more decentralised. They’re currently still in development but if you want to support them, sign up for early access and give them some feedback so they know what works and doesn’t! They’re still in closed alpha, but are intending to give beta access to about 100 folks at a time throughout 2021, so please sign up if this looks interesting to you!

Trilium Notes, is slightly more like a “notebook”, however you can arrange your notes in nearly infinitely deep folders. You can use things like Relation Maps & Link Maps to visualise your notes and how they go together. There’s even more they do and I just cant list it all, so go check out their stuff for a more comprehensive overview! Works on windows, linux, and (unsupported) mac

LibreOffice and ONLYOFFICE are two office suites that function just as well as micro$oft office, often Even Better in my experience. I’ve used LibreOffice for years now and honestly? never going back. OnlyOffice is technically free (as in pizza), but it’s a slight hassle to get everything set up, cause you need to set it up on a server. They have a paid and hosted version available with educational discounts, but honestly i’d go with LibreOffice.

OnePile, is an app I haven’t used myself since it only runs on Apple stuff. But I’ve heard a lot of good things about it so that’s why it’s in here. It looks like it works similar to most general “note taking notebook” apps. Looks really pretty too honestly.

EtherPad, is similar to ONLYOFFICE, however this one’s a lot more focused on specifically text documents. Works with real-time collaboration which is really neat.

Anything that FramaSoft has going on. They’re a non-profit organisation, dedicated to promoting digital freedom. A lot of open source cloud related things are not really useful to people who don’t have the time and/or money to set up a whole-ass server. That’s where FramaSoft comes in, they do it for you. Just about everything they offer (here’s a full overview) are free (as in free pizza). They also have a separate site to help you get started!

It’s not free to run it all on their side, so if you find yourself interested in using their services please try to support them any way you monetarily can! (they even have a “minetest” server (not minecraft, deeeefinitely not minecraft))

Joplin!! Which is also what I used to write this post so I wouldn’t have to use The Tumble’s post writing thing. It’s good for taking notes, has a bunch of neat plug-ins, and can also sync with a variety of cloud services!

Nextcloud For if you want to go just that little bit further on the open source and the privacy. Nextcloud has honestly way too many features for me to list, but the important parts are that it’s a nigh perfect replacement for office365, and probably even GSuite. The one caveat is that you either gotta host it yourself, or get someone else to host it for you. Framasoft (mentioned above), has a nextcloud instance. It works on just about every single platform, and can integrate with an absurd amount of services. Here’s a list of providers that work with nextcloud, and what different apps they have installed on their server.

I personally use Disroot, because they’re a local (as in, my country) non-profit that offer about 2gb of free storage, and then for about 15 cents per GB per month you can get more storage if you want. They also have an email service which is hella neat. Their one main rule is Do Not Use For Business Purposes, because they’re here to help the individual folks, not companies.

Neat Links you may also want to look at!

Here are some sources, and also resources that I used for this post. There’s also some stuff here that I think folks may be interested in in general.

General Wikipedia Article on Open Source Software

The Free and Open Source Software portal on Wikipedia

Resources page of the Open Source Initiative

Free Software Foundation definition of “free software”

itsfoss page on what FOSS means

itsfoss page on the history of FOSS

Open Source Software Foundation list of projects and apps they really like

Open Source Initiative on “the open source way”, and how it goes beyond software

Check out literally anything the Electronic Frontier Foundation has going on maybe?

TED talk on privacy and why it’s important

The Surveillance Self Defense project by the EFF

This EFF page on privacy for students

ExpressVPN article on privacy (not necessarily endorsing this company, just a good article)

What’s next?

I’ll probably make some more posts on specific kinds of software that I think folks may like. Or maybe a general overview on the more privacy forcused reasons and solutions for doing all of this.

Future post ideas, none of these are set in stone:

Open source Note taking apps

Replacements for just about Every Single google service I can think of

My personal setup

Open source / privacy conscious social media that studyblr folks may be into

Chatting, Calling, Videocalling: Discord and whatsapp alternatives etc

??? More studyblr apps that could do with a FOSS alternative??

How to support open source when you’re not a big fudgin nerd

How to be better at digital privacy and security, while still maintaining that studyblr aesthetic

Apps, software, other stuff, for specific areas of study maybe?

Feel free to suggest other ideas! Or leave feedback! This is my first big resource post so I wanna know if/how I can do better when I make another one!

179 notes · View notes