#inherently framing it as reasonable

[daydreamerdrew]

Captain America (1968) #110

[pocket-deer-boy]

you say being fat is a choice you make because being fat makes you happy and reading that feels like learning about trans people for the first time again. the overwhelming combination of excitement disbelief fear relief and self actualization of "you can do that???!?!!!!!! I can do that!!???!??!??!"

thank you

hhyea you can choose to be fat. i chose to be fat, i like it, it makes me happy. it's hot tbh. you can do whatever you want forever.

[absolutely-not-my-main-blog]

Hit FX sitcom It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has genuinely compelled me to read and appreciate classic literature more than any of my many former years of school. I look at the silly rat show and am like I get it now, I'm gonna read Shakespeare, Beckett, Dostoyevsky, etc. and analyze the world for funsies, my grades 7-11 English teachers could NEVER.

[sskk-manifesto]

\\

[demisexualnathanvuornos]

I support O's asexual wrongs.

[void-botanist]

Wrapped Scenelets No. 21: cufflinks

I'm writing scenelets for (most of) my Spotify Wrapped top 100 songs. Here's number 21, That's What I Like by Bruno Mars.

━━━━━━━━ ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ━━━━━━━━

Nestled in the midnight velvet of the box were two white gold cufflinks, cut in the shape of the compass-rose stars of his favorite suit. Spinder’s heart sank.

“They’re gorgeous,” he said. That much was true.

Fabian was doing that little smile he did when he didn’t want to look too pleased with himself, but was nevertheless very pleased. “I figured you could wear them to dinner on Monday.”

Ah. This was a gift for dinner with the Avelas, not because Fabian had just wanted to do something nice. “I don’t have any shirts with split cuffs, though.”

“Oh, right.” Fabian bounced his fingertips off the side of his own head. “I forgot about that. You don’t fit in my shirts, do you?”

“No,” Spinder said, his eyebrows raised just enough to point out that Fabian was still not using his brain.

“Right, of course. Never mind.” Spinder expected him to say some other nonsense, but instead he paused, blinked, and held his hand back out. “Let me take those back and get you something you can actually wear.”

“You don’t have to get me anything,” Spinder said as he dropped the box in Fabian’s hand. Fabian took them across the room, and to his back Spinder continued, “I don’t think cufflinks or no cufflinks is gonna make the difference to your parents.”

“I didn’t get them just so you could impress my parents,” Fabian said, putting the box down on his desk and turning to lean back against the desktop. “I wanted to get something nice for you. I just apparently lose my head when I open the DeRos catalog.”

Spinder couldn’t help smiling a little at that. “It happens to the best of us.”

Fabian gave him half a smile in return, then pulled something out of his desk drawer before coming back to the sofa. When he held it out Spinder saw that it was in fact a DeRos catalog.

“How about you tell me what you want. Doesn’t have to be from DeRos.”

Spinder accepted the hefty catalog and started his search with Fabian half-snuggled against him.

━━━━━━━━ ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ━━━━━━━━

Nicea taglist: @kahvilahuhut @kk7-rbs @outpost51 @writernopal @athenswrites

Scenelets wrapped taglist: @kk7-rbs

[kyouka-supremacy]

_

[arolesbianism]

Everyday I see another youtube video or whatever say smth along the lines of "this character is badly written because they're unlikable/annoying/insert negative description here" and everyday I end up massively disappointed because I came here for analysis on the actual writing of a character not just a description of the feelings they made you experience

[coratorium]

anyway i might as well be provocative while my posts already arent being shown to people: i really wish some of yall would fucking get over your need to frame any petty little thing you dont like or cant relate to as problematic

[emeryleewho]

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.

[moonfruito]

maybe this is a hot take but i think people's obsession with the found family dynamic and the need to call every friendship a "sibling dynamic" or something in that vein is not actually moving towards a better appreciation for platonic relationships as people like to claim that it is because people have just moved from framing everything as romantic because it fits into a nuclear family structure to framing everything as family-oriented because it fits a nuclear family structure as if friendship alone isn't enough. which is exactly the opposite of the point that people claim to be making. i have nothing against the found family trope inherently and i am never looking to police the way people enjoy media but i think the reason found family has latched on to the collective fandom consciousness so much is because it fits easily into the structure of relationships that we have been taught to see as the model just as with romantic pairings and i wish people would be happy to just call characters friends and understand that that is a meaningful and profound relationship in and of itself.

[cardentist]

people fixate on bi-lesbians as being problematic despite bi-gay men existing (as well as any and every combination of sexuality and romantic attraction you can think of) because terfs and radfems deliberately don't want bi women to associate with lesbians and are deeply invested with framing attraction to men As Bad. a sentiment which has invaded queer culture inside and out, intentionally And incidentally.

people fixate on straight cis aromantic men when straight cis aromantic women exist because framing aromantic people as inherently predatory and dangerous by the simple nature of existing is easier to do when you intentionally force the association with predatory dangerous behavior displayed by (and associated with) misogynistic men.

people are still bigoted against bi-gay men and woman aromatics (and any flavor of trans within these groups), but pay attention to the way these conversations are Framed and it's clear the way gender essentialism is being used as a tool to control the narrative.

radfems' gender essentialism says you're supposed to think men are inherently scary, inherently take advantage of women, so Naturally (it is assumed) a man who is sexually attracted to women but not romantically attracted them Must Inherently be predatory and scary. and now you're being asked to take that feeling of unease you've been manipulated into feeling and associate it with the entirety of a sexuality.

bi-lesbians are threatening to radfems because they want to draw inherent lines between these two groups. insist that attraction to and with a man is inherently dirty and dangerous. the same reason why "gold star lesbian" is a radfem concept. if it turns out that the lines between sexualities, between identity as a whole, is blurrier than they want it to be then that Must be framed as inherently dangerous.

if a single Kind of a marginalized group is being singled out to convince you that this group is dangerous or that they don't belong It's For A Reason. they're trying to manipulate you based on Biases (their biases and the ones they hope you have). the reaction to this isn't to abandon the type of person they're convinced are the worst of these groups, it's in solidarity.

aromantics who are men aren't any different from aromantics who are women, bi-lesbians deserve to live in peace just as much as bi-gay men. don't let people control the narrative Either by cutting down vast array of experiences that exist within any given identity, Or by convincing you that particular kinds of people within your communities are lesser than.

[tevanbuckley]

some low points from the ry*an g*zman interview because i need you all to feel my pain.

when talking about his celibacy (yes he uses that word): "I haven't entertained any interactions with any other females" — gave me the ick 0/10

uses the phrase "a woman's touch," to explain why women are inherently good at interior decorating(?) and that this skill is how women are able to enrich a successful man's life — side note: at no point do they talk about how men enrich women’s lives.

immediately after this the religious imagery takes a left turn and exits my frame of reference, bc instead of just asking "do you think you still have things to work on?" like a normal person, the host says "I want to know what one Thorn is in your flesh." — someone raised more religious than i was needs to chime in on if this is normal christian doctrine or a sign he might be in a cult. (is it a reference to the thorns in jesus' crown?)

ryan makes a weird comment about how "you've seen civilizations built on [a man in love]" — genuinely idk what the fuck this means — but it leads into a tangent about like, men as providers and how "I would do anything for my women."

"peace is key yeah we got enough problems in the world outside the house and so long as I come back to the house and I get peace," — maybe i'm being pedantic but the way he keeps framing woman as belonging in the home is 🚩🚩🚩🚩

"for the next woman I would have in my life I can see that they navigate their their problems and still offer peace to their men." — again 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

surprisingly claims he has been to therapy, which assuming is true, idk it worked.

the host: "women may be fighting internal battles you know kind of themselves do you believe that a woman still fighting those battles are able to still bring peace" — because remember ladies, no matter what you're going through your job is to bring peace to your man's home.

there's some more brief gender essentialist bs where ryan talks about how men "like to fix things," but are bad listeners, and how "problems within women are so specific to women that I wouldn't even try and and say that I have a grasp on them."

then the host randomly asks him if he thinks men need to be financially stable before entering a relationship or if dating a broke guy is a way to "present loyalty."

weirdly ryan actually kind of dodges this question, but ends up suggesting social media is a good place to get "great examples of what does and what doesn't seem to work." in relationships — and no. no it isn't.

oh and then he starts talking about conor mcgregor for some reason? and how it's bad he disrespected his wife by stepping outside their marriage — and i mean sure, although infidelity feels second to the rape accusations??

says it's harder for a woman to come into a man's life when he's already established because "now the man has proven to himself that he never needed a woman." — which, interesting given how later he talks about how women need to stop trying to do the independent woman thing.

he also gets weirdly possessive over his daughter at one point. does the classic "God forbid I find out that man disrespects my little baby." — idk, on the surface he talks about how he wants her to know her value, but it seems like he has a pretty limited view of what that value is.

the host drops lore about how she moved out of her parents house at 14/15 and how she had to "stop thinking like a woman and start thinking also like a man," but stay feminine and "know what a man wants and how to cater to that but also still be soft." — i mean good lord, i don't even know where to start 🤢.

this btw is the preamble to ryan's rant about "independent women."

and god the more i read the more i am deeply concerned about the woman hosting (i saw someone earlier say she's 21). this woman is barely an adult and has so much internalised misogyny, talking about how "us women don't know how to direct our emotions." and "in today's generation a lot of men are deprived of even the small things because a lot of women are takers."

this whole interview is utterly bizarre and i feel like it's taken years off my life. like i said earlier, this isn't a normal podcast he got weird on, this is straight up christian propaganda

[what-the-floofin]

So how do baby taurs work for the equitaurs and cervitaurs in your stuff?

Oh that's a good one actually - lots to talk about! Too much for one post, but gotta start somewhere. Enjoy some messy micro scribbles peppered throughout. They were originally very very tiny so, pardon blurriness.

I've got my Taurs running overall pretty similar to equine cycles and gestations - meaning they are what you call 'long-day triggered' by the spring and summer seasons.

(Though they do cycle throughout the year, just at slower rates and less consistently over cooler seasons)

This goes for the cervitaurs too - rather than using the shorter gestation of their deer alikes - as they and their foals are a bit bigger and more complex to deal with. Which also goes to suggest that twins/multiples are not a frequent occurrence for cervitaurs in comparison to actual deer, and inherently poses as much danger as it does for equines instead. Possible, but high risk and incredibly demanding.

So, you're looking at an 11 month gestation on average, and typically starting in a mid-spring to late-summer window. Which places most taurs at being born early-spring to mid-summer. It's most uncommon to be winter born, but not weird tbh.

Foals are super awkward, there's no getting around that, and in the first year they have a ridiculous growth rate when compared to other sentient creatures of similar lifespans.

These things are weeds - the difference from one day old to three months old is phenomenal alone. They are, however, cooked a little further along than what you'd be comparing to for a newborn human. They're able to support themselves enough to avoid outright injury (think like a 3-4 month old baby), but gaining actual control of all those limbs takes a bit more time. The equine half however would be a touch undercooked for a horse. Just physically, in size. No worries about comparative internal developments, that's all good and ready to go.

So they're typically gonna spend shy of their first month feeding and sleeping, practicing rolling up, sitting and limb coordination to build strength for self-standing. If mama has places to be, that baby is getting carried.

I also absolutely subscribe to the idea of arms being naturally held close to torso prior to having balance and coordination. It would support them a lot! Then it becomes a self-soothing gesture seen in the anxious, and an instinctive positional response when badly startled. Tuck in!

By three months you can expect them to be racing on their little stilt legs - albeit still with the occasional wobble and spill. And wowee did that happen fast when you think about it.

While the zoomies are a lot, they're balanced out by the fact that so much oncoming growth means foals crash nap very frequently. These buggers sleep a lot. It's go hard and sleep hard on endless rotation. Play, snack, nap, rinse and repeat.

This accelerated growth races away throughout their first year, and then drops right back into something a bit more reasonable - at least when you're considering it from the human perspective!

Yet in comparison to how they first started out, it's practically snail paced.

I'm meaning, you look at the size of a 3 month old horse foal, and that's the closest comparison to a 2 year old taur foal in body. Every 'horse foal month' thereafter starts guiding the next 'taur foal year' visual until you hit that yearling horse look for a taur when they're 10-11 years old. Then by that point, they've reached most of their full leg length, and the next 10 years is focused on finishing the bulking out of their frame.

(click to enlarge I hope) - Featuring my lass Thalo here haha

By rule of thumb I just have both equid and humanoid aspects grow in relative balance to each other, lanky stages and all. From the human perspective, the humanoid half grows crazy fast at first and then becomes comparatively similar. From the horse perspective, the equine half is crazy slow and always is. It would also give credit to having a higher physical durability than their animal counterparts. More time was spent growing!

It's worth noting that a lot of perceived 'weirdness' only comes from trying to compare them purely 1 to 1 with either horse, deer or human kids. Taurs are their own thing though! And nature's most consistent attitude is to Find What Works and Do it. No matter how wack, if it works it's used.

So, a rapid starting growth tapered into a much slower rate once they're stabilised and running was just the path that worked best for this Taur survival. Keep it simple!

There's always more to cover, but this is chunky enough for now. Whew!

[babybutchianthe]

↑ i am constantly thinking abt this reply because it is deeply reflective of the general attitude i see displayed toward palamedes, and camilla too, wherein people seem to assume that they are inherently more rational and comparatively unbiased as a whole when compared to everyone else. they are treated as if they are comparatively free from the same confines of thinking that affect other characters; they are characterised as a shining example of a truly equal necromancer-cavalier bond, of loyalty and love, and are treated as if they are perfect geniuses who can do no wrong—an attitude i feel very much inclines people to romanticise their devotion & treat paul's birth as a victorious thing.

@dve i feel summarised this phenomena the best: "i think cam and palamedes are nowhere near as revolutionary as a chunk of the fandom would like for them to be". i'd even go as far as to say that, in their role as foils to gideon and harrow, they are meant to showcase just how damaging the necro-cavalier dichotomy is to the individuals involved. i've spoke on this before but the bond is explicitly modelled on the example of john & alecto—which is already not ideal—and was built on a foundation of deception, with john hiding the fact the lyctoral process did not necessarily have to end with the death of the cavalier: the sacrifice of the cavalier is baked into it, because the history of cavaliership is indelibly tied into the avoidable deaths of the first cavaliers.

the equality ascribed to their bond is based on their seeming inversion of the exploitative nature of the necro-cav bond—compared to silas' siphoning colum, it seems improbable to say that they are anything but true equals who break away from the model, revolutionary in nature. they are devoted to each other, endlessly loyal! to the point camilla will violate the wishes and autonomy of palamedes in the name of her devotion.

camilla frames the fact she cannot sustain both of their souls in her body as her being weak, as opposed to being a product of the reality maintaining two souls in a single body the way they are doing is extraordinarily difficult and unnatural, doing herself a disservice in the process, because in her eyes she is failing in her duty to him.

his presence in her body is killing them both, and she frames this as [their] choice, but then wants pyrrha to lie to him about the fact it's killing her: meaning his choice would be based on her exploiting his absence in this moment, on a deception.

they can't keep this up forever, it is killing them both, but camilla's devotion to him means she won't accept that and doesn't want to give him reason to vacate her body. she wants pyrrha to lie—even though it's killing him too!—because she doesn't want to let him choose to let her live at the cost of his own life.

her death is avoidable but her role and her duty is to die for him, to sacrifice, to hold the sword for her necromancer. she won't let him, the necromancer, choose the cavalier's life because it is intended to be used by him—a soul to be eaten. she won't let him choose, violates his wishes and autonomy in the name of her devotion to him; i personally don't think equality in a relationship is based around denying the other their autonomy and lying to them, do you? and in this moment, camilla is treating herself as expendable, their inevitable death as inconsequential because it prolongs palamedes for as long as possible.

palamedes, conversely, has a very interesting perspective on lyctorhood:

he presumes that the original lyctors, the first necromancers and their cavaliers, sought to merge themselves from the start and that they achieved this incompletely. he posits the existence of true lyctorhood; palamedes views two becoming one, one being two, as something admirable, a truth not yet seen—grand instead of petty.

we also see somebody else who expresses a similiar belief in a perfected lyctorhood, one of the original lyctors, mercymorn the first:

the original lyctors did not seek out to merge with their cavalier, their other half in necro-cav terms, and only did so as a result of a lie, the idea of a one-way energy transfer. from mercymorn's perspective true lyctorhood is a process that preserves the cavalier; from palamedes' perspective true lyctorhood is a process that merges the cavalier and necromancer to form something new, the truest response to the call of "one flesh, one end" yet seen. palamedes' conception of lyctorhood is removed from the original context of lyctorhood's formation, and is shaped heavily by the ideals of the society he and cam were raised in.

If the cavalier and the necromancer do not take "one flesh, one end" as a maxim for their passion for each other, their bond is nonexistent. They must each take the other as their ideal. […] Their love is the love that fears only for the other: the love of service on both sides. Some have tried to characterise this relationship as the cavalier's obedience to the necromancer, but the necromancer must be in turn obedient to the needs of the cavalier without being asked or prompted: theirs is arguably the heavier burden. — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

suffice to say, i do not think paul is a defiance of the empire's ideals, so much as a perfected expression of them; paul is the embodiment of the love of service on both ends, the product of a mutual death. their choice to die as two to become one was exactly in line with what a necromancer and a cavalier are intended to do.

"One flesh" is the underpinning of our whole Empire [...] One end is one empire. — Tamsyn Muir, A Sermon on Cavaliers and Necromancers

[from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras]

OK, the absence of female Rohirrim political leaders and warriors from the Middle Earth historical record…let’s get into it.

There’s a reason this remains a significant point of debate in the fandom, and it’s because the source material is confusing. Clearly, there is/was a role for women in public life in Rohan that is unlike anything we see in the other realms of Men (or hobbits or dwarves!). The concept of shieldmaidens has obviously been in their culture for a long time. Éowyn is one. Someone thought it worth their time to train her to fight, and the people (speaking through the voice of Háma) know her to be “fearless” and trust her to be their leader. The men of Elfhelm’s éored have no problem with her presence among them in Gondor, and though people are shocked to find her injured on the field, no one is scandalized by the very idea that she was there. So there are Rohirrim all over this story who are behaving in ways that suggest female leadership and female martial ability are not inherently surprising or objectionable to them.

And yet…there is not a single named female Rohirrim either before or after Éowyn in any part of the text of LOTR that we know to have wielded any actual political authority or who fought in battle. If those women existed, why/how are they not in the historical record?

The most satisfying answer TO ME is tied up in which historical records we’re looking at. By the framing device of LOTR, the text that we’re reading is ostensibly the story as documented in the Red Book of Westmarch. The appendices, where we find histories and legends of Rohan, were meant to have been written by the hobbits with some contributions by Aragorn, Gimli and others — but NONE OF THE AUTHORS WERE ROHIRRIM. Yes, they surely spoke to Éomer and Éowyn as the sections on the House of Eorl were written, but the sibs didn’t write the text themselves. Outsiders did. So the text does not represent a direct Rohirrim version of Rohan history. THAT version doesn’t exist in writing anywhere, because that’s not how the Rohirrim operate. They preserve their histories and legends through song, poetry and storytelling. Which brings me to this line from Appendix A:

”Many lords and warriors, and many fair and valiant women, are named in the songs of Rohan that still remember the north.” [emphasis added]

That’s confirmation right there that Rohan history as the Rohirrim practice it DOES include “many” women. And if they have songs that remember many women of the north (i.e., their direct ancestors among the Northmen) then surely their more recent songs, poems and stories would also cover the women of more recent times. So the problem is not that the Rohirrim don’t remember women in their (oral) historical record. The book tells us that they do. Maybe the problem is that the men of outside cultures who wrote the book — those who notably came from societies where women had no comparable roles — didn’t choose to include those parts when they created this written historical record. They noted that the Rohirrim name many women in their histories, and then they proceeded to only tell us about some of the men. That’s a skill issue for the authors, not for Rohan.

So in my mind, an average Rohirrim could talk to you about great warrior heroines of the Northmen or the exploits of some of Rohan’s powerful queens and princesses.* That’s not to say that Rohan was drowning in such figures, but they existed and people knew about them. It means there was enough of them and enough awareness of them to create space in their culture to have those views that we see in the main story (i.e., a willingness to accept both a woman as a leader of the people and a woman as a rider in the army when those things were presented to them). It reconciles the strange contradiction between the apparent culture in Rohan and their history as it was given to us as readers. Make of that what you will, but I like it for me!

*And yes, this could presumably explain the omission of Héra from WOTR in the telling of Helm Hammerhand’s story, though that gets complicated by the fact that WOTR contradicts the published Helm story in a few significant ways. (Which, for the record, I am fine with, but it means I view WOTR as more of an AU than a literal extension of the source text!)