#it just happened to be the correct combination of so many nuances that mattered to me already and them dialed them up to 10

[nullcanary]

"Now all my other gods are dead. Hallelujah, to the apocalypse in my head!"

[slimeinnocence]

Interpretive Theory and Physics

Mario Ramirez-Arrazola October 28, 2020

Efforts towards explaining the dichotomy between the STEM and Humanities, its history and its implications, should be something of grand value to new students in higher-education. What is even more important however is to teach that this dichotomy can be sewn together. This effort will probably be seen as arduous because of its nuanced sensibilities, especially when getting deeper into the matter; the divide is seen as just that at first, strictly black and white, but I think that the theory of interpretation can ease this process immensely. Another problem that can arise from this process is that the remedy seems to be primarily inside the field of humanities and its subsequent techniques, strategies, ideology, and tools–so nevertheless, the emphasis towards combining the two fields can still be primarily seen as a mainly “humanitarian” effort. This is not by fault of either discipline, it’s important to notice divisions and similarities, it should be stated that the dichotomy works as some sort of Yin-and-yang paradigm. This is not to say either that there is no real or applied division, the aim should be towards being collaborative and successful through such methods–Albert Einstein wrote in a memorial for Ernst Mach: "How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens…” And why do I say that the theory of interpretation is a useful methodology for sewing this divide? For the same reason that epistemology has been such an important field for epochs. I think in interpretation we can see the most basic and yet grandest ties between the two disciplines–further, I think the subscription mostly towards Stanley Fish’s theory of reading and interpretation is the best for this paper, especially when in combination with the excellent example of a historical experiment on the theory of temperature by Marc-Auguste Pictet. More specifically, I wanted to approach this from the perspective of applied interpretative communities, from Fish’s side, and to also research the scientific community that Pictet was working with, especially in his confrontation with positive cold and Louis Bertrand. I also find it important and interesting to relay this back toward our contemporary timeline, giving a short analysis into postmodernism and the theory of hyperreading. A roadmap is given at the end in order to best map the trajectory of thought within this paper. There will also be attention towards an approachable and sensible reading, as I think that both fields would appreciate.

First, we are to give an elaboration towards Fish’s work-reader and interpretive community theories, we will also give a short history into the literary theory that Fish was trying to correct. The foundations of interpretive theory go back to circa late 700 C.E., in contrast to the socio-linguistic turn towards literature going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. The former is much more interested in why and how–referred to as hermeneutics in the theory–whereas the latter is more interested in structure, form, and type–referred to as poetics in theory. It’s important to note that both are interested in specific works, as is canonical with some mediums such as Norton, and they have been both deeply entrenched within the history of reading as a whole and especially the history of reading and knowledge in the United States, though literary theory is arguably more invested in hermeneutics. Further, it should also be duly noted that works under the canon are not specifically put there by any central authority. That could have been the case before, but now it’s much more up to the intellectual community in question. Literary giants such as Dante Alighieri and Friedrich Schleiermacher were among the first modern leaders to deal with a central problem in hermeneutics called polysemy–basically, how to deal with such varying interpretations towards a body-of-work, especially one in great need or worthiness to be interpreted such as the Bible. Dante and Schleiermacher came up with various techniques and skills to structure interpretation; interpreting, to them, was a form of art. The most popular technique that was conceived was on the side of Dante, what he came up with is referred to as the four-fold method, constructed by four different layers of interpretation: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. The method is always based on the literal meaning of the passage but the higher levels leave room for allegory (interpretation). As remarked, the norm in contemporary teaching is that all prescribed readings are looked at as complete mysteries which need discovery and investigation–the students have the freedom of allegory, but they know the teacher will always be there to act as the basis towards their reading. As is with STEM, though one may know the application of the science, the teacher is always there to guide towards the true theoretical implications of the application. What I mostly wanted to illustrate is that Dante, Schleiermacher, and Fish (who we will discuss in the next passage) all think that interpretation is an art. This is not to say that they are similar in ideology, in fact they are very different. For Fish, however, literature was better analyzed through its situation within a reader-response paradigm, meaning that literature is only as much as can be interpreted and experienced by its audience.

Fish’s theory was not incredibly new, its beginnings can be seen in the description by Aristotle in Poetics that art should be seen as an experience, a drama. But as Dante and Schleiermacher would say that reading and interpretation is an art-in-itself, Fish would say that reading and interpretation is an art of which the grand value is in its effect on the audience. Moreover, what reader-response theory tries best to illustrate is the conventionalized behavior behind interpretation and reading. What is that conventionalized behavior? It’s up to the interpretive community, a term that we will deeply explain later, but to give another contemporary example, think of the techniques that are given to students, especially in the United States, on how to read–something so conventionalized that you never give it any attention. Close reading, the reading technique that is most popular in the United States, is something much more akin to the ideologies of Dante and Schleiermacher. Close reading is easily executed and easily taught, in correlation with the “easy-to-use” structure it was engineered around in the early 1900’s. It’s a quick and easy way to see illumination within a passage without having a lengthy background in literature. Fish is not interested in changing the technique of close reading for another that better suits reader-response but rather how reader-response works under the contemporary technique of close reading and any technique hereafter. Conventionalized behavior as stated by Fish can also be understood as competency, the competency to infer information from literature–”it was a dark, stormy, and gloomy night on the day of Halloween”–the literature is trying to foreshadow suspense, horror, drama, and downfall. To be duly noted, how would this read if someone from a culture that does not entertain the art of horror or suspense interpret this passage? Probably just a mere description of nature, right? Fish uses the term tacit knowledge to call these conventions, this is immediately interesting because tacit knowledge is a term borrowed from the philosophy of science. 

Further in ode to the philosophy of science, Fish used an experiment to validate his idea that interpretations are not solely based within the literature itself but rather through the experience and tacit knowledge the reader has. Fish was teaching a class in 1971 which surrounded the intersection between linguistics and literary theory, his students had been learning “how to identify Christian symbols and how to recognize typological patterns and how to move from the observation of these symbols and patterns to the specification of a poetic intention that was usually didactic or homiletic.”1 So before the class started he wrote the names: “Jacobs-Rosenbaum, Levin, Thorne, Hayes, and Ohman” on the blackboard vertically-stacked, he told the class that it was a poem, the cohort proceeded to analyze the poem for its typological rhetoric, structural patterns, and religious significance. Of course, this is very peculiar–Fish (though he gives benign reasons as to why he chose those names, none of which having to do with religion) gave his cohort basically gibberish, asking them to decipher a codex which did not have any original intention. Nevertheless, his class was able to churn out incredible and sufficient analysis of the so-called poem–Fish replicated this experiment with universities everywhere, getting the same result, validating his theory that interpretation lies within the interpretive community and does not need “original interpretation” in order to be comprehended. A valid counter-argument would be to ask: maybe it’s not a question if we can but if we should, appealing to the fact that there are many perceptions and interpretations, going back to polysemy. Think of popular practices such as peer review2 that basically reinforce the tacit knowledge of the community at hand. Though we might think of interpretation as personal, do we not learn our knowledge from our peers, the peers learning their knowledge from their teacher, their teachers giving out grades and comments, the teachers working under specific departments within specific institutions? Say a teacher wanted their students to write a paper arguing in favor of a one-party system and a student ended up writing about bioethics–though there might be interesting interactions in those disciplines, there must be a subscription to the conventions in order for anyone to make sense or get ahead. Even further, when Fish presented his list of names to his class, why did they not exceed the conventional boundaries of interpretation? Why was there no correlation of the names to, for example, the field of thermodynamics? It might not be so much a problem that there are too many varying interpretations, but rather that the reinforcement of interpretations creates a lack of originality, by no one's fault. There are even more interesting implications but I do not want to get on the fringe of postmodernism, as an interpretation of Fish can lead to theories surrounding the arbitrariness of models, structures, institutions, and knowledge–STEM especially is not fond of these implications. Instead, what we will take from Fish and apply to physics in the next section is interpretive communities, lack of originality, and conventionality.

The following short historical account into the interpretive climate of temperature during the lifespan of Marc-Auguste Pictet (1752-1825) will have the same message as I’ve already illustrated in the interpretive battle between Fish, Dante, and Schleiermacher. We will be analyzing Pictet’s experiment into radiant heat and his discourse into the findings with Louis Bertrand that led him to do a subsequent experiment into radiant cold. Experimentation in the field of radiant heat was sparse and undirected from the span of 1570 to 1770, appearing in many regions and languages, with the historical basis seeming to fall on the ancient Greek witnessing of the burning mirrors of Archimedes. The experiment that started the popular discourse into radiant heat had to do with the heat of a single coal igniting a combustible object solely on its reflection of the heat by mirror; by 1780 two important laws had been discovered: radiant heat is different from ordinary heat and its properties of convection and conduction and also that radiant heat was different from light but obeyed the same optical laws as light. Pictet’s teacher and mentor, Horace-Benedict de Saussure, was incredibly interested in meteorology and geology; when Saussure retired from his chair of philosophy appointment at academy at Geneva, he made sure that Pictet was appointed to the same position–both of them were a part of the Genevan intellectual community. Saussure researched the application of heat to metrology and geology, so it makes sense that Pictet’s chief work was his “Essay on Fire.” His essay was dedicated to the research on the “reflection, refraction, and absorption of radiant heat.” He conducted an experiment that finally validated assumptions that radiant heat was different from light while also obeying the same laws of light, a figure of his experiment will be shown below, in true Lacanian-esque manner.

It’s important to note that Pictet had plentiful suspicions of his own experiment, the logistics and the validity of the experiment, something he had plentiful exterior experience with. Before completing “Essay on Fire” he did research into radiant heat research being done in Florentine, Italy–the community there had lots of worries about the validity of their own experiments, especially when trying to conduct experiments on the radiation of cold, so they never came to any actual solid conclusions. Pictet debriefed the results of his experiment with his colleague at the Academy of Geneva, Louis Bertrand. Bertrand’s main field was in mathematics but he was also interested in electricity and thermodynamics, his novel question to Pictet was innocent to me, asking whether or not cold could be radiated–in Pictet’s diary he states: “I confidently replied no; that cold was only privation of heat, and that a negative could not be reflected. He requested me, however, to try the experiment, and he assisted me in it.” The experiment was structured exactly as in the figure above but this time the “Hot or Cold object” was a flask with snow in it, the thermometer of air immediately dropped several degrees until it eventually reached a steady temperature, Pictet poured nitrous acid on the flask and it lowered the temperature of the thermometer even more. How could this possibly be? How could something without heat possibly reflect any positive or negative temperature? To put it even more colloquially, how could a shadow cast light? To give a slight historical account of the interpretive community that Pictet was working in, the third edition of Britannica (1797) had interpretations such as: “‘if a body is heated, the cold ought to fly from it’’ or other quotes of general uncertainty such as: ‘‘to lay down certain principles established from the obvious phenomena of nature, and to reason from them fairly as far as we can.’’ I believe this situation to be quite similar to Fish’s class experiment, in relation to STEM one can think of the makeshift CO2 scrubber that the Apollo 13 crew had to make because of failure in their second oxygen tank, having to retaliate against the large amounts of incoming CO2, they built this a filter out of things on board of the Apollo 13 shuttle: duct tape, tube socks, spacesuit hoses, plastic bags, and more. Pictet’s experiment on the radiant nature of cold was groundbreaking and shocking to the field of thermodynamics, though it seems like in the field of physics, illumination is not always so quick. What followed were such statements: ‘‘Heat doesn’t really exist ( being a mere absence of cold), yet certain phenomena could fool us into thinking that it did.” And other statements that detailed the inconclusive nature of the results: “...and they appear equally conclusive in establishing the existence of radiant cold, as the other experiments are in establishing the existence of radiant heat”9 So, in grand essence, the point is made that since literature is all-encompassing, nothing can escape the grasps of the interpretive community. Not STEM or the Humanities. Conventions are spotted all throughout Pictet’s research, before and after, because of the interpretive community he was engaged in prior to talking with Bertrand, he thought that there was no possible way cold could be radiated. Even then, the interpretive community of figures such as John Murray (chemist from Edinburgh) were extremely suspicious of the findings, seeing as it completely went against his own ideology. 

I will provide a quick and interesting relation back to literary theory. Close reading is popular and has been for quite some time now. The effects on the academic community in the United States in following the technique of close reading for so is easily shown. Does it always have to be this way? Because of the invention of the internet, fast information, and institutions such as Canvas, should we change reading techniques? Literary theorist Katherine Hayles thinks so. In the field of Digital Humanities the remedy seems to be moving towards a technique called hyperreading, the technique to properly accommodate the change from reading physical texts to texts that are now primarily on screens. Hyperreading involves techniques such as skimming: “quickly reading over text for gist of its meaning; this is where the F-shaped pattern comes into play” and juxtaposing: “when you have two or more screens, tabs, or documents open at once and jump between them.” Do the characteristics of hyperreading: searching, filtering, skimming, hyperlinking, pecking, juxtaposing, and scanning provide a better structure to interpret texts than the technique of close reading? Does STEM literature require more close reading? Would STEM or the Humanities benefit more from hyperreading than the other? I hope that my attempt to sew together the dichotomy between STEM and the Humanities was useful and interesting. I personally used the discipline of physics for my paper because I find physics the most interesting of all the sciences, though I’m sure there are very interesting ties that can be made into fields such as psychology, data science, biology, chemistry, and so on. I’m sure there are also very interesting ties when the sciences are used through the techniques of critical theory, primarily reciprocal illumination. There are bound to be findings when reading physics research through a critical lens and there already are, for example, the application of the entropy law to natural resource consumption within economics.

[enderspawn]

It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?

Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this

i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.

to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore

so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).

in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)

so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.

NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"

techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.

in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)

one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.

but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.

for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)

the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.

to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.

thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.

now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.

techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.

when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.

however its more nuanced than that:

1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.

2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.

3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.

Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:

1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)

2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it

but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.

what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.

so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?

personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.

(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)

so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.

what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"

this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:

i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?

there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).

but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.

if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.

if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.

miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:

would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.

but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.

your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.

part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it

[qqueenofhades]

Do you have an estimation how much racism or xenophobia Yusuf would have encountered traveling with Nicolo across Europe up to the modern ages? This is a very vague ask, forgive me. I wonder how much the concept of racism has changed over time. I have the vague impression that pre-modern European societies were always more diverse than one might assume nowadays, but I have little factual historic knowledge. I also wonder how much xenophobia Nicolo would have encountered.

And you would be correct! Because the “medieval ages were all lily-white and anyone placing POC in them is Wrong” is yet again, surprise surprise, another total lie that is a product of right-wing reactionary revisionism and not based on actual historical evidence. A couple years ago, I wrote a very lengthy post about historical people of color in Europe, starting from the Roman era and going down to about the 19th century (everything prior to the 20th century, basically). Obviously, it only discussed each example briefly, but there’s definitely more than enough there to debunk any idea that medieval Europe was monochromatically white. Iberia, Sicily, and other “crossroad” kingdoms had the most visibly and long-term settled diverse populations, but major cities such as London were ethnically diverse from their founding (which if you know anything about the Romans, truly, is obvious). There is extensive evidence for Africans and Muslims traveling to, if perhaps not settling in, early medieval Ireland and Britain (though sometimes they did do this, as there is a record of at least one African abbot of an English religious house). I also have this list of readings on the golden age of medieval Africa, including the richest king of all time and the various powerful empires that existed particularly in West Africa.

As noted in the Historical People of Color post, the crusades themselves, despite their obvious violence and bloodshed, were vehicles for cross-cultural exchange, which resulted in both Islamic ideas traveling to the west and western ideas traveling to the Islamic world. Medieval Christians were fascinated by “Saracens” as much as they were frightened by them, and there was a flourishing genre of “Saracen romances,” such as Parzival (one of the most popular romances of German medieval literature,which features the half-Muslim hero Feirefiz) and The King of Tars. These romances obviously display complicated attitudes about race and religion; the Saracen heroes are usually depicted as having to forsake their mistaken beliefs (usually some jumbled combination of paganistic polytheism rather than actual Islam) to complete their moral and emotional journey, and in King of Tars specifically, that results in an actual physical transformation for the Muslim sultan, the Christian princess’ husband, from black-skinned to white-skinned as a symbol of his newly gained virtue. Obviously there is an element of colorism at play; I wouldn’t call it racism because racism as a scientific term and “biological” concept was invented in the 19th century when, yet again, the West was busy concocting “impartial” reasons for its colonialism and “civilization” of supposedly inferior people. In the Saracen romances, however, the Saracen characters are not unsympathetic (if misguided), and the star-crossed lovers trope between Christian princesses and gallant Muslim warriors is played pretty much as you would expect it to go (with the implication that we’re supposed to root for him converting to Christianity so they can be together). As long as religious identity is correct, skin color doesn’t really matter or is at least less important, is viewed as mutable and changeable, and not the only marker of a person’s identity.

So in that sense, Yusuf and Nicolo would not be unfamiliar as characters in their very own star-crossed Saracen romance, and since we’ve already discussed the bonds between knights and how deeply romantic and emotional friendships were often the case even between men who WEREN’T lovers, it’s entirely possible that people would have understood them in that context. It also depends on how much time they spent in medieval Europe (as in DVLA, I have them traveling across the Eastern world for several hundred years after the crusades and not getting back to Europe until the Renaissance, when ideas and attitudes toward race and religion were once more undergoing huge transformation). Obviously, yes, there would be an element of xenophobia throughout history, and England (aha, hello Ancestors of Brexit) has in fact pretty much always been known for hating foreigners. But these weren’t necessarily foreigners of color; white Europeans from France, Italy, the Low Countries, Flanders, Bohemia, etc could all be viewed suspiciously by the English, especially post-Henry VIII and the religious break from Rome. (But this was, again, also the case before that happened, because apparently the English just suck like that.) This plays into the fact that as has been pointed out before, racism in Europe is cultured along very different lines from how it is in America, and takes into account geographical, cultural, religious, and other factors, as well as simply skin color. (Though colorism is usually also unfortunately part of it pretty much everywhere, since the ideal medieval woman was often thought to be blonde and blue-eyed, and fair coloring has always been positively correlated with morality -- just look at “Dark Magic” and “Black Magic” and all those other fantasy tropes of the villain being Dark.)

So basically, Yusuf and Nicolo would probably have been equally mistrusted in, say, 16th-century England (such as when they go there in the attempt to rescue Andy and Quynh in DVLA). They’re sodomites, for a start (this is right about when male homosexuality starts to enter the books as a capital crime), and Nicolo is Italian and therefore deeply suspicious as a possible papal agent. Yusuf might have actually made out better in that case, because Elizabethan England had fairly friendly diplomatic relations with the Ottoman and Persian empires (this is written about in the Historical People of Color post) and there was even an idea of Protestant England and Muslim North Africa allying together to attack their mutual enemy, Catholic Spain. Othello is obviously a product of this cultural context, with its dashing but doomed and tragic Moorish captain (see once again: the character himself is not unsympathetic, and is misled by the evil Iago). So many Elizabethan Englishmen settled in Muslim societies that there were attempted royal incentives to lure them back, and Yusuf would probably have been an exotic curiosity more than an existential danger. (As noted, they would almost certainly hate Nicolo more.)

In places such as Constantinople, where I had them live for a while in chapter 4, Nicolo would also be the more obviously mistrusted party. In a Greek Orthodox city that had substantial and long-term populations of Muslims and Jews, a Latin Catholic would be more the Enemy, because... well, sometimes we hate the people who are almost like us more than we hate the people who are obviously very different and therefore cannot be compared. Emperor Alexios Komnenos of Byzantium helped launch the First Crusade, at least in part in hopes of getting formerly Byzantine lands back from the Turks, but very quickly realized that he couldn’t control the crusaders and things went sour long before the trauma of 1204 and the sack of Constantinople; relations between Latin and Greek Christians had been at the brink of outright hostility for most of the crusades (though of course hostility was not the only experience between them). The Byzantine emperors were used to diplomacy and negotiation and trade agreements with their counterparts in the Islamic world, all of which was viewed as “consorting with the enemy” by the West. Besides, the Great Schism in 1054 had already broken the Western and Eastern churches apart after centuries of bitter theological disputes (these arguments may look like the most mind-bogglingly boring and tiny and insignificant details ever, but the battle over defining heresy and orthodoxy RAGED almost from the founding of Christianity in the first century). Edited to add further discussion on the nuances and complexities of the Eastern-Western Christian relationship.

So yes. As ever, the reception that they would have encountered is complicated, and it would not be immediately analogous to modern racism and Islamophobia. It would also be intensely mediated by their cultural, chronological, and geographic location, where sometimes Nicolo would (paradoxically) be MORE mistrusted by other white Christian Europeans. Not to say that Yusuf wouldn’t have encountered prejudice too, because he would, but not quite in the same ways as he would now, or that we would expect.

Thanks for the question!

[the-ghost-king]

Interestingly enough the fandom isn't always rational with their criticism. Take Percy and Rachel for instance. A perfectly healthy cute and functional relationship dynamic, but people really hated it because it got in the way of Percy/Annabeth.

I think it can also come down to the fact that not all situations are exactly equal if that makes sense. If you have a character dynamic in couple A, that often playfully bully of fight with eachother that's a different dynamic than relationship B, where one person has trauma resulting from bullying and the other parter behaves in roughly the same way as couple A do. In that case the behavior may be seen as inappropriate. Not that this example has anything to do with the ships at hand, but I think a long form meta examining the different paralleling issues from both relationships and their validity would be easier.

Also I haven't seen anything about about Nico/Will being called toxic. Yikes, what are people saying exactly, because I don't doubt a lot of people might be projecting unconcious bias.

Oh absolutely, I may seem young but I remember the Rachel vs Annabeth ship wars all too well... I do not want to go back 😅

The rest is under a read more though, I got a little carried away talking! Also this isn't my best post on the issue by far so please feel free to check out the tags I mention later on!

(AN: I use nblm alongside mlm in this post because some nblm individuals will consider their attraction to men as gay, or queer, while others will not and those individuals are often closely connected to mlm experiences and they also deserve to talk about their thoughts and feelings if they wish. I am aware nonbinary people are not a monolith and not all nonbinary people will categorize themselves or their attraction this way, it's up to nonbinary individuals reading this to determine where they fall on what)

As for Solangelo being toxic some of the conversations revolve around the ableist nature of the ship, this is definitely most obviously a dynamic in BoO, and it's a more than fair point about the ship I don't have anything negative to say there in the slightest!

(The above parallels with the idea that Will is introduced as a "healer character" for the "sad gay kid", which is a fair criticism as well but one that's often left rather one sided, because while that is true- if it's a way Nico likes being treated (watched closely for injuries and cared for) then it's not wrong, and in ToN Will is seen overstepping Nico's boundaries which causes a healthy argument about Will doing so and he stops, so if Nico doesn't tell Will "no" or some variation he's obviously not horribly uncomfortable with the situation, or from the way it would be interpreted alongside previous text, there's fair reason to think he likes it)

The thing with Solangelo I see often is "Nico is still processing trauma, and internalized homophobia and isn't ready for a relationship" which is a huge misunderstanding on how trauma and internalized homophobia work as a whole, because the experiences can be different for everyone. You can absolutely date someone while processing internalized homophobia, you may struggle with certain things but it is absolutely doable for some people. And trauma is such a varied thing, and it's not like he's solely relying on Will either, he is seeing Dionysus for therapy and getting the help he needs! Your life doesn't have to go on hold for therapy no matter how much trauma you are sorting through! (Not disclosing my medical history or anything but I have struggled with both things and my life didn't stop for me to deal with them, I made new friends, went on dates, etc- it is possible depending on the person so the very narrow view of "this is unhealthy" and "this is impossible" rubs me wrong when it's treated as fact over opinion, because it's an opinion).

There's also constant discussions about how fandom (in current) fetishizes both Nico and Will, which I, and other mlm and nblm have spoken our own thoughts on multiple times to be largely ignored by the biggest perpetrators of this "they're overly fetishized narrative". There's also fairly consistent discussion of how fandom treats Nico and reduces him to uwu small gay boy, which more often than not seems to mean "effeminate" rather than actually harmful stereotyping (yes queer men are allowed to be "girly" especially considering there is some canon text that could be interpreted with that meaning, if there wasn't a plausible way to determine canon that way I wouldn't care if people were going after others feminizing Nico a bit- but the issue is again, fact and feeling aren't the same and fandom seem to conflate the two rather often).

(Some of that ties into nonbinary Nico head canons which are common as of current, and that argument quickly becomes transphobic is people don't watch themselves... Even without bringing nonbinary Nico into the equation, headcanoning Nico as femme isn't bad or wrong, and to say otherwise becomes gender policing which is bad).

There's also this weird obsession with there being a "correct way" to ship mlm ships (specifically solangelo), which when considering it's not mlm or nblm saying those things, it becomes really uncomfortable. Especially because the wording of some posts is less "hey this is homophobic" and comes off more like people are more upset at seeing an mlm couple than at the fact that they're being shipped poorly.

All of this in combination with the constant, talking over of queer guys (specifically mlm and nblm) comes off really messed up, and yeah homophobic.

It's not something that can be pinned down to one specific thing but rather a series of smaller microagressions (which in sure most of are intended in good faith but are being filled with subconscious bias) that build up over time- which is why my concern is that solangelo is facing harsher criticism/different treatment that percabeth simply for being a queer ship.

I can't be 100% sure on that like I said, because that's something that is hard to gain tangible evidence for, or maybe even impossible :/

If there wasn't so many other small things going on alongside the harsher criticism of solangelo, I would honestly just ignore it... But the weird policing of "how to ship solangelo" while proclaiming it's "overly fetishized" all while speaking over a not insignificant number of mlm and nblm who have agreed with certain opinions, or taken time to write their own (+ some of the rhetoric that can be found on he blogs of people commonly expressing these opinions) is super uncomfortable and definitely homophobic... Even if they were treating the ship kind of weird, but treating the queer guys talking about it well and actually listening (because the current solangelo fandom probably has the highest proportion of queer guys in comparison to any other fandom I've been in with an mlm ship as of right now) I wouldn't be so bothered... But sadly that's not the case..

(I'd also like to note out of my posts criticizing the current conversations happening around the issue my post saying "listen to mlm voices" got a lot more notes than some of the other ones, which I can't say is specifically anything, because like solangelo perhaps being treated unfairly to percabeth, I am willing to acknowledge there might not be an issue- but it's weird how often mlm and nblm's posts on "listen to us" will be uplifted but never any actual criticism... Just a thought)

I detail things a little closer and in more detail in some of my posts tagged #fandom homophobia, #mlm fetishism, and #gender policing in fandom, it's not a full or comprehensive list (I've only really started speaking up in the last month or so), and it is largely solangelo specific. However I am always interested in listening to the voices of other queer guys about the issues and hearing out their thoughts as well (people aren't a monolith and I'm interested in trying to be as nuanced as possible!) and I acknowledge that although I am mlm and am going to be a little better at recognizing issues and calling them out (although I like every person am not perfect of course)

So yeah! That's a bit of the current ongoings, again not a full comprehensive list, and definitely not my best explanation ever but I think the point gets across well enough? Definitely check out my other tags if you're interested in more, there's also definitely more posts I need to make on some of the things I've seen (maybe not all of them so solangelo fandom specific, and maybe some of them even more solangelo fandom specific) but it's rather slow work in progress!

[eventual-ghoste]

TOG rambling

Hello! This post has to do with Andy and some revelations at the end of Force Multiplied. Spoilers I give aren’t super specific but they’re there, and I can’t promise they won’t bite.

This is also in response to a TOG discord question I couldn’t stop thinking about, regarding Andy’s history as compared to Nicky’s, as posited by Em | salzundhonig:

But Nicky's past as a crusader and his growth from his past was well received, surely that'll be the same with Andy right?

I apologize if these ramblings sound like a rant but I swear my intentions are in the spirit of debate/discourse, and they are not an attack on any individuals.

The TL;DR is: Andy has work to do. Hopefully Hollywood and Rucka don’t fuck that up.

Feel free to check/correct/call me out if I’ve misspoke anywhere here (I realize I still have a lot to learn) but IMHO, I don’t think a semblance of Andy’s growth will be well received. Or, at least, I’m not so certain it should be because, in the comics, I genuinely don’t think Andy has grown. At the end of Force Multiplied, she still defends her actions with the “this is how I grew up” argument, and says it was “a long time ago,” and as much as I love love LOVE Andromache the Scythian for her badassery and how she’s a vision of female empowerment, I can’t help but think about how I hear those words all the time from people defending themselves against racist and/or sexist comments from so-called bygone eras.

Wanna know a sad difference between those people and our beloved Andy? They apologize for what they’ve done, or who they were. As hollow as the words will sound, however unforgivable their actions, however self-serving the apology will be— Those Asshats apologize. Comic!Andy never does, not even when confronted by Nile, an African American woman who likely descends from slaves, and has undoubtedly experienced racism and discrimination on a regular basis. It’s been thousands of years and Andy doesn’t even know how to say sorry (if she ever does, kudos to whoever finds a timestamp/panel, and let me know!). Instead, Andy buries the truth of her actions with a load of justifications to the point that she becomes self-deprecating, calling herself “vermin,” concluding she’s no better than the apathetic, selfish, evil POS they hunt. She may have spent the past millennia with TOG, trying to make things right but then—

But then she gives up. She’s tired. She resigns because she doesn’t have it in her anymore to fight the injustice she once willingly and self-servingly participated in. So, on top of being incapable of apology, Andy also doesn’t vow to do better. She doesn’t accede to change.

If there is one reason for why “The Old Guard” is a fucking absolutely shitty title, is that it refers to people who refuse to accept new ideas and progress. We are in a fandom that has four canonically queer characters, three people of color, and two female leads! Maybe the irony is intentional but damn, why is it that Andy, PROTAGONIST #1, hasn’t completely caught up with the program?

And that brings me to why I think Andy’s reckoning will not be on the same level as Nicky’s. Because as popular as Kaysanova is, neither Nicky or Joe are the main protagonists of TOG.

We don’t follow Nicky or Joe (or Booker) into scenes. The men are strictly back-at-the-ranch, supporting characters. We follow Andy or Nile (who also have the most screen time, I believe, but fact-check me). Filmically speaking, we ought to value them with a measure of precedence. Their words and actions matter the most, especially Andy’s by nature of how everyone looks to her for guidance.

So, with all that in mind: How does one reconcile a beloved protagonist with a despicable past in slavery, of all things? In the wake of an international racial reckoning, how is a celebrated, white South African actress going to fulfill that role? How is production going to balance fantasy with reality? How are Rucka and other involved writers (Theron, Prince-Bythewood?) going to alter the original IP, while retaining the nuance of this moral quandry?

Forgive me for the overkill but: How is it going to happen?

I’m well aware that my thoughts are going down a rabbit hole, and I am definitely overthinking this, but as somebody who’s genuinely curious about whether Victoria Mahoney and the rest of the TOG crew will have the guts to confront the issue head-on, or if they’ll take the easy way out. Excise the bits that no one wants to talk about, much less watch in a feel-good film that TOG has become for many fans.

Whatever production ends up doing, I hope that 2O2G doesn’t end on a cliffhanging “pity Andromache” note because, damn, I’m gonna feel real uncomfortable scrolling through fandom posts, reading people defending slavery and giving the same “the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there” spiel, in order to protect a fictional character played by a conventionally-attractive cis heterosexual white woman.

(Also: If the past is so different from the present, why are there still calls for social justice? Why do ALL industries still lack diverse and equitable representation?)

Now, this is where I’ll go back to the original question and say: While I think Nicky functions well as an example for change/growth/redemption, I don’t think his change serves as a good comparison to Andy’s. I say this, even while I’m aware of double standards in gender, and even between the reception of gay characters vs lesbian characters vs etc. (re: I’m open to critique).

My line of thought stems from the fact that, canonically, Nicky always had Joe. The two have seemingly been inseparable from the moment they first killed each other. It’s likely that Joe would check Nicky whenever he said or did something wrong and offensive, and perhaps this symbiosis was mutual.

(I also have a feeling that many people easily disregarded the Christian/Muslim conflict because A) lack of knowledge in BOTH religions and B) the onscreen couple appear very much in love, especially when one is giving a beautiful monologue on the nature of their relationship. When we meet Joe and Nicky, we meet them at their best. Shout-out to interfaith couples who know more about this than my single (and secular) ass does, and might have more to say about this.)

On the other hand: Andy never had someone who was like how Joe was for Nicky. No one ever calls out Andy because A) she’s the oldest, B) she’s the lead, and C) her business card says ANDROMACHE OF SCYTHIA, WAR GOD. Yeah, she had Quynh/Noriko but— at the risk of yelling at Rucka for vilifying a queer woman of color (or praising him for not leaning on the stereotype of Asian passivity? idk, anyone got thoughts on this?)— Noriko is clearly not encouraging good behavior. Neither will Quynh if Netflix lets 2O2G be as faithful to the comics as TOG1 was.

Which means the Law 282 conversation might be…unavoidable? Somewhere along the line, we still end up in the hotel room with Andy, on the floor, pleading for her crew to not abandon her, even though she is the one who abandoned their cause.

This sets up a circumstance in which Fade Away might be spent trying to redeem Andy/Charlize Theron, bring her back to the “good side,” teaching her to be better— thereby highlighting her experience and “salvation,” rather than making a point of her past, and the reality of her actions. In other words, a “pity the white woman” fest.

(Because I’m crossing my fingers that TOG production/Netflix know better) In an effort to prevent that from happening, I wonder if Rucka will combine Force Multiplied with Fade Away for the 2O2G script. Given the series’ track record, I think it is feasible that FA’s release coincides with 2O2G’s, and that it finally resolves Andy. Whether by revitalizing her energy as a do-some-gooder, or finalizing her vulnerability by putting her 6,000 years to rest, thus handing off the reigns to Nile and a new generation of leadership.

The last thing I want to leave off with is: I don’t hate Andy. It’s a credit to Rucka and fellow writers (from film and fandom) that I don’t.

I might not love her character as enthusiastically as I used to, but that doesn’t mean I’m not amazed by her creation. She’s a female lead whose sexuality is not exploited by the male gaze; whose emotional vulnerability is not considered a hindrance to, nor an explanation for, her battle prowess; and whose unabashed queerness is not reinforced by cookie cutter stereotypes. Andromache the Scythian is AMAZING.

That doesn’t mean I’m going to excuse or ignore her most glaring and contemptible flaw. More than anything, I’d love to sweep her past under the carpet so that 2O2G can be problem-free. Like many people, I just want to enjoy a movie without getting triggered.

I want to see Quynh and Andy kiss and make up. I want to see Joe rocking Those Shorts, and a cheeky shot of Nicky appreciating his ass. I want to see Nile welcoming Booker back to the family again. Some form of group therapy would be chef’s kiss.

But something about glossing over/removing slavery from Andy’s narrative reeks of dishonesty, and reminds me that the (Hollywood) movie industry is full of people who do not want to be tainted with negative perceptions. Understandably, appearances are their livelihood— but that particular truth is something they still have to reckon with.

[maaji-maji-majima]

some kissing hcs for Majima?(if u can make it nsfw)

So I'm in a weird place with this. I don't want to leave you unanswered but I know you won't like the answer that I give. It has been a long time since I was active on tumblr and I'm not sure when along the timeline headcanon became synonymous with fanfiction. I appreciate fanfiction authors for their creativity, but I am not one myself. I use headcanon in the older definition of "this isn't in the source material, but it is true in my brain". They are either random things my half asleep mind thought of while walking home from work or a character analysis. At the same token your ask had crawled into my brainmeats and won't leave. So again, I apologize that this most definitely is not what you're looking for, but I hope someone out there finds this to be an interesting read.

Without further introduction, here is a character analysis of our favorite pansexual, gender fluid, emotionally stunted goblin in regards to relationships and why the he desperately needs therapy as brought to you by a different pansexual, gender fluid, emotionally stunted goblin who got therapy but probably needs more.

Trigger warnings: Abuse, self harm, mental disorders, poor coping strategies, unhealthy relationships, random tense changes, not fanfiction

Spoilers for the whole franchise, but very specifically for 0, K1, and 5.

Abuse does weird things to people's brains. In Yakuza 0 Majima has barely been out of the hole for a year. He might no longer be suffering the actual physical torture he had been subjected to the year prior, but he is still directly in the hands of his abusers and being watched every moment. He is still in a cage even if it doesn't look like one. He is depressed and likely suicidal, but doesn't follow through with those thoughts because he is determined to make sure Saejima has a home to come back to. He is willing to endure just about anything to allow Saejima a chance to exact that final moment of retribution because Saejima is the one who deserves it and Majima doesn't feel that there is any possibility for forgiveness. In all likelihood he hasn't sought out anyone for a hookup or paid company for an evening due to a combination of not feeling like he deserves anything that feels good and the fact that he's constantly being watched. The year in hole means he no longer really has a concept of privacy, but he's worried that getting close to someone, even for a few moments, could put them in danger if Sagawa or Shimano feels like holding something else over his head. It isn't worth accidentally dragging someone into his own personal hell. He no longer lives for the present, he is only living for that far-off future that he hopes isn't just a pipe dream.

Enter Makoto. At first she is a stand-in for Saejima's sister Yasuko, but it morphs rapidly from there. She is the light and kindness and hope that he hasn't seen in years and she's being dragged into his bullshit. He knows in his heart of hearts that she doesn't deserve what she is being forced into, so his mind snaps into the immediate and does everything he possibly can to save her. This is is the hill he wants to die on. Maybe, just maybe, he can end his miserable existence with a final act of good and he feels that Saejima might just be able to understand. But because he no longer has any relationships in his life that are not strictly professional or the abusers he cannot escape, he has little recollection of what a nuanced relationship or even friendship is any longer. Due to circumstance she is also the only person that he cannot keep at arm's length, no matter how desperately he tries. So he falls for her and falls hard. But in the end, after everything they go through he does the impossible. He lets her go. She has a life and a future, whereas he has neither of those. What would she do? Become his ane-san? Have some temporary happiness before she realizes she has a target on her back for the rest of her life? No. Majima believes she deserves so much more than that even though it hurts him deeply. What is one more hurt on top of everything else? He's gotten extremely good at burying his pain.

Getting to Tokyo flips a switch in Majima's brain. Like many people with mental trauma who don't have access to therapy he falls into excess as a way of self medicating. He fits virtually everything on the hedonism checklist. Drinking? Yeah. Violence? Hell yeah! Promiscuity? Yeah, but I ain't judging. Drugs? Probably, even though it isn't explicitly stated in game. Everything from his shift in personality to his wardrobe has become, intentionally or not, a defense mechanism. He has escaped from all of his abusers except for Shimano and he refuses to allow anyone to gain that kind of power over him again.

It is a double edged sword, however. His depression and PTSD are running unchecked. In all likelihood he hasn't fallen hard on vices as a way to reclaim ownership off his own body. Instead it seems more probable that he is dissociating. After everything he has been through he doesn't care what happens to his body in the long run because it isn't actually his anymore. Risky behavior, which is practically Majima's middle name, is also frequently used as a passive form of self harm because the end result is either temporarily feeling better thanks to endorphins and adrenaline or permanently feeling better after embracing death. He could achieve a similar feeling by taking up jogging and chasing a runners high, but that takes more time and energy than chugging a handle of whiskey or goading some chump into throwing hands. Sadly even now admitting to mental problems by seeking help is fairly stigmatized in Japan and it was only worse in the early 90s. Can't have a problem if no one tells you it's there, right?

Then he meets Mirei. She's intense but not wild like Majima. At that moment in time she is everything he needs. Head strong, domineering, and very, very determined. She knows exactly what buttons to press to wrap him right around her finger. And he lets her take the reigns, lets her run his life because he realizes he was doing a terrible job on his own. Better her than Shimano, right? Doing something wrong results in the cold shoulder instead of a vicious beating, and doing something right leads to more than simply the relief of avoiding a beating. He decides that making her happy is enough to make him happy. Until suddenly it isn't. He never wanted to be a father, but even the idea that he could have been was enough to cause a fundamental shift in his entire outlook on life. He could have had someone to live for, instead of just survive for. But he had no say in the matter and didn't know until the decision had been made for him. When Mirei told him she had an abortion he snapped. He hit her. The one and only time he raised his hands against her. Disgusted with himself, and wounded by her decision, he left. If he was capable of that, he knew couldn't be the person she had been trying to mold him into. He realized he was nothing but a weight around her neck dragging her down. And so that day signals the end of their short marriage. He spends the next several decades drowning in guilt for his actions while still resenting her for her choice.

That leaves us with Kiryu. Poor, oblivious Kiryu. Majima's fixation is multifaceted but in no small part due to the fact that Kiryu is one of the few people strong enough to hurt him, but is the only one that doesn't want to. And Majima just doesn't understand. After everything, he only deserves to hurt, right? Saejima, Yasuko, Makoto, Mirei. Everyone who gets too close to him ends up worse for it, so why won't Kiryu and his sense of honor seek justice on their behalf? So he does everything he possibly can to wind up Kiryu enough to Pay Attention Damnit, Fight Me. But Kiryu's response is always just flustered awkwardness because he doesn't want like fighting, it's just a part of his job, like wearing a suit or answering a phone. To Kiryu fighting isn't a thing done because it's enjoyable, it's done because it has to be. But he's still the only one who doesn't flinch when Majima brandishes a knife inches from his face.

And then Kiryu is arrested and in jail for ten years. And ten years is a long time to build someone up onto a pedestal. Like only wanting to talk about the best of a person after they've died. The same thing happened with Saejima. Build them in his mind to what he wants or needs them to be since they are not there to actively correct it. The decade is pretty miserable, going through the motions and trying to not make waves with the bigwigs while terrifying the minions into obedience. When he hears Kiryu is being released it is like waking up again. He all but waits at the taxi stand at the entrance of Kamurocho on the day of Kiryu's release, all but vibrating with excitement. It's a fight he has been waiting on for a decade, too bad it was little more than a disappointment.

So Majima decides to bring him back up to spec in that very Majima flavored way. Small fights, big fights, surprise fights. Kiryu is still reluctant because he doesn't have a reason beyond Majima's dreamed up training program he doesn't actually want to be a part of. Of course this only leads Majima to do everything possible to get under Kiryu's skin, including sharing his personal vulnerabilities while disguising them as jokes just to cause fights, but Kiryu just kind of rolls with it which leads to confusion and frustration on both sides. After a while Majima starts to get into Kiryu's hobbies, like pocket circuit, ostensibly as another form of picking a fight. And he discovers he actually enjoys a lot of it. And they are both too dense and emotionally stunted to realize they're basically dating at this point. At multiple points Majima takes potentially lethal blows meant for Kiryu and the excuse that he is the only one allowed to kill Kiryu is very, very thin. He just can't quite admit out loud that he doesn't want to see Kiryu truly hurt because that's weakness and he is Not Weak (tm).

Shimano's death and Kiryu's departure from the clan come as a whirlwind that destroys him all over again. He's left directionless. So he leaves the Tojo in an attempt to find his own way in the world, for the first time in over twenty years.

I think I need to call it here for now. I know I've left out Saejima and Daigo, among others, but I've been working on this for days and my progress has been eaten twice and I just don't have the energy to keep going right at this time. Maybe some day in the future I'll find the time and energy to write out the rest for all the other games.

tl;dr What Majima wants and what he needs are two different things. He wants to fightfuck, but he needs to be bear hugged into submission so that he can have that mental breakdown he's been carefully bottling up for over thirty years. He needs a good, ugly cry. And therapy. Lots and lots of therapy.

[funkymbtifiction]

Thank you for answering my last ask (about Ni versus Fi versus 1). That definitely helped put it more into perspective. In that case, how would 1 show up in Fi? I think I can understand it in Ni. But back to Fi-dom: would it show up in the causes? Like, would the Fi-dom think something along the lines of, “I must care about X because if I don’t then I’m a bad person”? Or would it be something else altogether??

Fi-doms are almost always 9s, 4s, 6s, or 2s. 1 and Fi-dom aren’t an instinctual match unless it’s a fix in the tritype or a wing on 2/9. So you can usually rule out being a core 1 if you are a Fi-dom, or Fi-dom if you are positive of being a 1.

And as for Ni combined with 1, definitely correct me if I’m wrong on this but would it be along the lines of: “I have to be perfect every step of the way of my plan. Not perfect in the sense that the details are managed. Rather, I have to act so thoughtfully, so reserved and so considerately and so ‘good’, I know I’ve done everything right.” ??

Yeah. Ni-doms have specific things they want to make happen, and 1 wants to make every detail of that perfect, and neither one accepts any substitutes.

As another, more explanatory example for possible Ni/1 (and definitely definitely correct me if I’ve got this wrong):

I’ve been in the midst of an ordeal with a friend. She’s someone I promised to keep in my life and never abandon. For years since that promise, I’ve done my best to anticipate any and all rough patches –– wanting to make sure that I really have done my best as a friend. 

But we’re at this point wherein I’ve realized she can’t be the friend I need her to be. I have asked her time and time again to work with me (to be straight with me about the important stuff, to communicate instead of avoiding the subject because those things are what matter to me most. Not the silly differences, the recollections of the past).

Yet, no matter what strategy I employed, no matter how thoughtfully I try to approach the situation, no matter how much time I give her, all she’s said for the last four years is, “That’s not me. I can’t do that."  

And because I despise breaking my promises, because I don’t see the point in tossing people aside "just because”, because there are so many people who have depended on my being there for her, it’s become such a mess. 

To the point where I’ve been trying to use MBTI to step away and explain everything in that situation. I’m disinterested in getting caught up in blame, I just want to understand the truth behind our personalities because, yeah. It’s easy to get caught in the things that went wrong. What’s fulfilling is actually reaching the heart of the matter, finding and enacting on meaningful resolution. Because we’re not going to remain friends, but that is no reason to toss it aside.

This is an extremely nuanced, thoughtful, balanced and mature way to examine a relationship. The measured approach indicates you are not a feeling dominant, because there is no ‘extreme’ -- you are approaching it analytically (feeling/thinking axis in the middle of your functional stack). It sounds INFJ.

Anyway, all this led me to try to explain MBTI to my mom. Which got us on the subject of principles and the likes. Which turned into a tangent about Ni versus Fi. Wherein she said “Oh, you sound so much like Fi” and my brain said, “Ah, dang it, now I need to check and see if I haven’t gotten it all backwards”. Which then led to my brain saying, “But 1’s also a thing. How does 1 impact all of this? Because I swear I’ve got some 1 in me.” Hence, my last ask and this current ramble. Anyway, thank you for reading this mess. To say it’s appreciated is to say I have a slight tendency to overthink things: a severe understatement.

Your friend who says “I can’t do this because it isn’t ME” is the Fi-dom. ;)

[mentalisttraceur-software]

Cooperative Multitasking

An almost stream-of-consciousness ramble of something I was thinking about today.

By Default, Maybe Even Mandatory

The more I think about writing correct code, the more I feel like preemptive multitasking as the norm was a mistake. That operating systems should have been written from the ground up to assume that all good and correct software yields execution back to the scheduler every once in a while. That computer science education and software development tradecraft should teach and presume that cooperative multitasking is the only multitasking available or acceptable.

Preemption for the Uncooperative

Obviously robust systems must have preemption capability, in order to avoid denial-of-service from code which never yields control. So systems would still need the foundation of preemptive multitasking, and processes which do not cooperatively multitask would need to be preempted. The temptation which many operating systems followed is to just make this the norm - anything can be preempted at any time, thus your guarantees against race conditions are weak at best and every piece of the system has to do more work just to keep things sane in the face of multitasking.

But I'm almost ready to say that programs which don't yield control for too long should probably just get killed, ignored, presumed dead or compromised, timed out, invalidated, be stripped of any resources and locks they hold, and so on. At the operating system level, at higher levels of how you design your multiprocessing and distributed systems, in your business logic, at all levels.

Given enough time, all conceivable execution delays and communication partitions which could cause things to not get back to you soon enough to not be a problem will happen. We can either

write code on systems which force us to deal with it thoroughly and from the ground up, across our entire trade and industry and culture, which is cumulatively easier to get right once everyone knows and follows the patterns, or

we can keep living in a sea of code and systems overwhelmingly saturated with an incomprehensibly inconceivably large number of concurrency and latency problems just waiting to happen.

All You Need (Probably... I Just Make Shit Up On The Internet)

Obviously almost everything is in place already, we're just not using it to build systems which are consistently honest, helpfully explicit, and manageably controlled about where concurrency can happen.

In a typical modern operating system, when you call a system call, or at least certain system calls which tend to inherently entail delays and thus are natural points for scheduling or cancellation, you are yielding execution to the kernel. Now the kernel has an opportunity to go do something else, schedule another program, deliver a signal to your program or kill your program with a signal, and so on. The kernel only preempts your process if you don't call into a system call for long enough. Otherwise you're being cooperative. And in the real world, this is how lots of programs actually play. They don't have to be written to cooperatively multitask to do it, they just have to do operations which are natural scheduling or cancellation points, which most program do often enough on their own, because most programs are interacting with the outside world, not slamming the CPU with raw self-contained computation long enough to use up their time slot.

So what about the program that do want to hog the CPU longer than their time slot?

Well, we have the ability to trivially implement a "yield control if something else is waiting" operation which would have effectively zero overhead if it's not time to yield (at most a handful of machine instructions with one branch, and if you're pipelined and branch prediction matters, that branch can be predicted as taking the "no need to yield" path for hot loops and other pure computing logic, which is the only situation where the overhead of that check and branch prediction is actually a problem).

To me that seems like the only remaining primitive the OS kernel needs to provide to user-space to make this work. And it's trivial! Let's assume we're using a memory location for generality, though this could be optimized all the way to the hardware, with a dedicated CPU flag or register and exposed in the instruction set. Anyway, in the in-memory version, the simplest form is a fixed address on systems with an MMU and virtual memory, or perhaps it is provided by the kernel to the process during initialization, to be compatible with ASLR and hardware without an MMU. When the process starts up, the kernel sets the value at that address to zero. When it's getting close to the time when the scheduler would want to preempt the process, the kernel writes one at that address.

(Internally, on modern hardware with all cores busy, flipping the value at this address from zero to one might have to be implemented as a momentary preemption of user-space by kernel-space code. So you can see where the temptation comes from! A working multitasking kernel which does not depend on cooperative multitasking must have all the building blocks necessary for preemptive multitasking, and it is so natural to just let user-space processes partake in concurrency seemingly "for free" - it took humanity half a century of experience to get to this point where we're starting to realize that this is actually detrimental on the whole.)

Now, whenever the process wants to know if it should yield, it reads the value at this address. Is it still zero? You got enough time left to do some work before checking again. Is it anything else? Time to yield - if you checked reasonably often, you've still got ample time to go directly to yielding execution to the scheduler. Did you overwrite it, or take too long to check? That sounds like a you problem, if you don't yield often enough, your process gets preempted, but then it's just killed.

Notice that you're not being asked to gracefully shut down or pause or clean up anything. This isn't some situation where you gotta scramble to flush buffers, save state to disk, commit transactions, or anything like that. You're just being told its time to yield to the scheduler, and if you obey it is exactly the same situation that in a normal preemptive multitasking system would just happen automatically, without warning, unpredictably, possibly between literally any two machine instructions. But incidentally, in a lot of situations, this would probably make it easier to set up systems where you can have enough time to do those things, and fewer possible ways for those things to be interrupted or delayed or half-finished.

So we all gain the profound benefit of being able to pick or at least see where in our code concurrency can slide in and change the state of the world out from under us or give us an out-of-band signal like a cancellation.

And the price is that those of us who write low-level code which does nothing but raw CPU operations for longer than the time slot our process gets have to add an explicit `yield_to_the_scheduler()` call - and if it really really doesn't matter, then just spam it in enough places to be safe. Which is fine because we just established that it's going to be nearly zero-overhead unless you actually have to yield to the scheduler anyway.

Notably, some operating systems already have everything in place to do this. Linux, for example, writes the current time into an address which the process can read and knows about, so the process doesn't need to pay system call context-switching overhead every time it needs the time. In fact, one possible idea to explore for improving my extremely minimal suggestion is that instead of having the memory location work as a boolean, have it contain a deadline.

Beyond that, the structured concurrency people have basically figured out the big picture of how most of this looks for most code - you have operations which are explicitly points where something else could be scheduled or you could be cancelled. For simplicity and human friendliness you probably combine those two concepts together. When we restrict ourselves to languages and primitives where each operation is either explicitly a place where multitasking can be relevant to or intrude on our logic, or a place where there are definitely no relevant concurrency concerns, we can deal with concurrency better.

Exhausting Nuance

There is only one tricky part here. The reason that preemptive multitasking is so useful is that not all concurrency is equally relevant to whatever you're doing. Most of the time, there are specific changes to the state of the world which matter to our logic, and all other changes which might happen don't matter.

Preemptive multitasking kinda takes the gamble that most systems are heavily concurrent but most parts have no reason to care about what the other parts are doing. They are not obviously harmed by the fact that anything could happen between or during any operation they do, because nothing that could happen matters, and so those programs strictly benefit from magical invasive multitasking permeating them with an infinity of possible preemptions.

For example, a typical `sed` invocation which reads from standard input and writes to standard output doesn't care about anything. In between a bunch of pure CPU operations on memory, it will read and it will write, and either those operations succeed, or one of those operations fails and it tries to call another write to standard error with an error message, and then no matter what happens, it will try to exit. Files on the system can change and it doesn't care. If the file it was reading from is truncated while `sed` was reading it, to `sed` it's no different than as if that file always ended there. It could get frozen with a SIGSTOP and eternities could pass, the file it was reading from could get overwritten, and when resumed it would just read from the offset it left off, no different than as if that file always had those contents back when `sed` started. The file it is writing to could be overwritten many times, and `sed` doesn't care - it just writes, and either it's writing in ”append" mode, or it's writing at whatever offset it is currently pointing at and maybe it wins because it's the last write or maybe it gets overwritten and it doesn't notice. `sed` could be started on Linux, have a debugger attached to it, its entire memory could be dynamically copied into another dummy process frozen with a debugger attached, possibly on another computer running a different OS with a compatibility layer for Linux, and then it can be resumed, and it doesn't care.

Notably, in some of those cases, the program which called `sed` to do a specific job probably does care a lot about some of those possibilities.

I, and to some extent structured concurrency, takes a somewhat reductionistic view that conflates all concurrency together. You do an operation and it's either asynchronous or not. You run an asynchronous operation, and anything else that's asynchronous might happen. And in structured concurrency you are never ever allowed to ignore that something is concurrent. You have no choice but to write code which is aware of all scheduling and cancellation points which it is subject to.

Maybe that's fine. Maybe...

everyone should be forced to be aware when they are doing an operation during which anything could asynchronously change,

all code which does too much should be forced to do an asynchronous yield to the scheduler every once in a while,

because these two requirements together would pressure code to cleanly split its pure logic from it impure logic, and to split its pure logic into small chunks of work which the caller can call individually.

This feels onerous to me, but I also suspect that for most problems, the best solution probably naturally meets these requirements. Possibly for all problems. At least for a sufficiently thorough definition of "best", which includes things like "made up of piece of code which are small, composable, reusable, and easy to test, easy to validate and audit, easy to understand in isolation, easy to combine, and easy to change" and "robust against all sorts of real-world problems, including edge cases".

But,

notably my definition of "best" does not include practical things like "could be created or maybe even fully appreciated or maybe even used correctly by a typical fungible software developer, or maybe even by any minds who can actually reliably get things done instead of getting stuck for entire days thinking about the design of everything", and

this design space is at least slightly too big for my thinking limits - I don't think I can yet simultaneously weigh all the tradeoffs in my head against each other, or even see far enough to find all the tradeoffs or feel their full weights.

[weyassinebentalb]

Gaza Conflict Stokes 'Identity Crisis' for Young American Jews

Dan Kleinman does not know quite how to feel.

As a child in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, he was taught to revere Israel as the protector of Jews everywhere, the “Jewish superman who would come out of the sky to save us” when things got bad, he said.

It was a refuge in his mind when white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, chanted “Jews will not replace us,” or kids in college grabbed his shirt, mimicking a “South Park” episode to steal his “Jew gold.”

But his feelings have grown muddier as he has gotten older, especially now as he watches violence unfold in Israel and Gaza. His moral compass tells him to help the Palestinians, but he cannot shake an ingrained paranoia every time he hears someone make anti-Israel statements.

��It is an identity crisis,” Kleinman, 33, said. “Very small in comparison to what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, but it is still something very strange and weird.”

As the violence escalates in the Middle East, turmoil of a different kind is growing across the Atlantic. Many young American Jews are confronting the region’s long-standing strife in a very different context, with very different pressures, from their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.

The Israel of their lifetime has been powerful, no longer appearing to some to be under constant existential threat. The violence comes after a year when mass protests across the United States have changed how many Americans see issues of racial and social justice. The pro-Palestinian position has become more common, with prominent progressive members of Congress offering impassioned speeches in defense of the Palestinians on the House floor. At the same time, reports of anti-Semitism are rising across the country.

Divides between some American Jews and Israel’s right-wing government have been growing for more than a decade, but under the Trump administration those fractures that many hoped would heal became a crevasse. Politics in Israel have also remained fraught, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-tenured government forged allegiances with Washington. For young people who came of age during the Trump years, political polarization over the issue only deepened.

Many Jews in America remain unreservedly supportive of Israel and its government. Still, the events of recent weeks have left some families struggling to navigate both the crisis abroad and the wide-ranging response from American Jews at home. What is at stake is not just geopolitical, but deeply personal. Fractures are intensifying along lines of age, observance and partisan affiliation.

In suburban Livingston, New Jersey, Meara Ashtivker, 38, has been afraid for her father-in-law in Israel, who has a disability and is not able to rush to the stairwell to shelter when he hears the air-raid sirens. She is also scared as she sees people in her progressive circles suddenly seem anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, she said.

Ashtivker, whose husband is Israeli, said she loved and supported Israel, even when she did not always agree with the government and its actions.

“It’s really hard being an American Jew right now,” she said. “It is exhausting and scary.”

Some young, liberal Jewish activists have found common cause with Black Lives Matter, which explicitly advocates for Palestinian liberation, concerning others who see that allegiance as anti-Semitic.

The recent turmoil is the first major outbreak of violence in Israel and Gaza for which Aviva Davis, who graduated this spring from Brandeis University, has been “socially conscious.”

“I’m on a search for the truth, but what’s the truth when everyone has a different way of looking at things?” Davis said.

Alyssa Rubin, 26, who volunteers in Boston with IfNotNow, a network of Jewish activists who want to end Jewish American support for Israeli occupation, has found protesting for the Palestinian cause to be its own form of religious observance.

She said she and her 89-year-old grandfather ultimately both want the same thing, Jewish safety. But “he is really entrenched in this narrative that the only way we can be safe is by having a country,” she said, while her generation has seen that “the inequality has become more exacerbated.”

In the protest movements last summer, “a whole new wave of people were really primed to see the connection and understand racism more explicitly,” she said, “understanding the ways racism plays out here, and then looking at Israel/Palestine and realizing it is the exact same system.”

But that comparison is exactly what worries many other American Jews, who say the history of white American slaveholders is not the correct frame for viewing the Israeli government or the global Jewish experience of oppression.

At Temple Concord, a Reform synagogue in Syracuse, New York, teenager after teenager started calling Rabbi Daniel Fellman last week, wondering how to process seeing Black Lives Matter activists they marched with last summer attack Israel as “an apartheid state.”

“The reaction today is different because of what has occurred with the past year, year and a half, here,” Fellman said. “As a Jewish community, we are looking at it through slightly different eyes.”

Nearby at Sha’arei Torah Orthodox Congregation of Syracuse, teenagers were reflecting on their visits to Israel and on their family in the region.

“They see it as Hamas being a terrorist organization that is shooting missiles onto civilian areas,” Rabbi Evan Shore said. “They can’t understand why the world seems to be supporting terrorism over Israel.”

In Colorado, a high school senior at Denver Jewish Day School said he was frustrated at the lack of nuance in the public conversation. When his social media apps filled with pro-Palestinian memes last week, slogans like “From the river to the sea” and “Zionism is a call for an apartheid state,” he deactivated his accounts.

“The conversation is so unproductive, and so aggressive, that it really stresses you out,” Jonas Rosenthal, 18, said. “I don’t think that using that message is helpful for convincing the Israelis to stop bombing Gaza.”

Compared with their elders, younger American Jews are overrepresented on the ends of the religious affiliation spectrum: a higher share are secular, and a higher share are Orthodox.

Ari Hart, 39, an Orthodox rabbi in Skokie, Illinois, has accepted the fact that his Zionism makes him unwelcome in some activist spaces where he would otherwise be comfortable. College students in his congregation are awakening to that same tension, he said. “You go to a college campus and want to get involved in anti-racism or social justice work, but if you support the state of Israel, you’re the problem,” he said.

Hart sees increasing skepticism in liberal Jewish circles over Israel’s right to exist. “This is a generation who are very moved and inspired by social justice causes and want to be on the right side of justice,” Hart said. “But they’re falling into overly simplistic narratives, and narratives driven by true enemies of the Jewish people.”

Overall, younger American Jews are less attached to Israel than older generations: About half of Jewish adults under 30 describe themselves as emotionally connected to Israel, compared with about two-thirds of Jews over age 64, according to a major survey published last week by the Pew Research Center.

And though the U.S. Jewish population is 92% white, with all other races combined accounting for 8%, among Jews ages 18 to 29 that rises to 15%.

In Los Angeles, Rachel Sumekh, 29, a first-generation Iranian American Jew, sees complicated layers in the story of her own Persian family. Her mother escaped Iran on the back of a camel, traveling by night until she got to Pakistan, where she was taken in as a refugee. She then found asylum in Israel. She believes Israel has a right to self-determination, but she also found it “horrifying” to hear an Israeli ambassador suggest other Arab countries should take in Palestinians.

“That is what happened to my people and created this intergenerational trauma of losing our homeland because of hatred,” she said.

The entire situation feels too volatile and dangerous for many people to even want to discuss, especially publicly.

Violence against Jews is increasingly close to home. Last year the third-highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States were recorded since the Anti-Defamation League began cataloging them in 1979, according to a report released by the civil rights group last month. The ADL recorded more than 1,200 incidents of anti-Semitic harassment in 2020, a 10% increase from the previous year. In Los Angeles, the police are investigating a sprawling attack on sidewalk diners at a sushi restaurant Tuesday as an anti-Semitic hate crime.

Outside Cleveland, Jennifer Kaplan, 39, who grew up in a modern Orthodox family and who considers herself a centrist Democrat and a Zionist, remembered studying abroad at Hebrew University in 2002, and being in the cafeteria minutes before it was bombed. Now she wondered how the Trump era had affected her inclination to see the humanity in others, and she wished her young children were a bit older so she could talk with them about what is happening.

“I want them to understand that this is a really complicated situation, and they should question things,” she said. “I want them to understand that this isn’t just a, I don’t know, I guess, utopia of Jewish religion.”

Esther Katz, the performing arts director at the Jewish Community Center in Omaha, Nebraska, has spent significant time in Israel. She also attended Black Lives Matter protests in Omaha last summer and has signs supporting the movement in the windows of her home.

She has watched with a sense of betrayal as some of her allies in that movement have posted online about their apparently unequivocal support for the Palestinians, and compared Israel to Nazi Germany. “I’ve had some really tough conversations,” said Katz, a Conservative Jew. “They’re not seeing the facts, they’re just reading the propaganda.”

Her three children, who range in age from 7 to 13, are now wary of a country that is for Katz one of the most important places in the world. “They’re like, ‘I don’t understand why anyone would want to live in Israel, or even visit,’” she said. “That breaks my heart.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2021 The New York Times Company 

source https://www.techno-90.com/2021/05/gaza-conflict-stokes-identity-crisis.html

[neostriatum]

The Cake Is Not Quite A Lie

[AO3] [Dreamwidth]

“Okay, now, once more!” He leaned back to clap his hands, gesturing encouragingly, “From the top!”

The man standing by the other table raised his eyebrows, gaze not deviating from the bouquet before him. “I don’t quite think that will work, dear,” He said, staring meditatively at the arrangement of carnations and roses. One of the blue ones was shuffled around, and he picked up a pair of shears to clip one of the thorny vines woven between the stems “Cats of that breed aren’t well known for their ability to act.”

As if in agreement, the Norwegian Forest kitten mewed, managing to look ruffled and disgruntled despite the silk sash tied delicately around its neck. It was a gift from Thor scarcely a month ago, a surprisingly thoughtful blend of Asgard and Earth traditions from the newly-coronated king. They were told the… gift would not reach a height typical to Asgardian breeds, but would be formidable nonetheless.

Loki was quite sure that it liked En Dwi better, given the way it always perked up for a scritch from his spouse. At least it has good taste, I suppose.

“I’ll have you know I ran a successful play for months on Asgard,” He sniffed, giving up the cause for lost when Kitkat jumped out of reach, and pointed a finger at the other man, “And they didn’t even know it was me until Thor came around!”

En Dwi hummed, tapping a few of the flowers to shift them into slightly different colours. His amused smirk was highlighted by the sparkling blue stripe down his bottom lip, pursed attractively as he patted Kitkat on the head with a murmured endearment, “Big brothers will do that,” He reminded Loki, looking contemplatively at the cat’s unruly mop of fur, “Or at least, so I’m told. Did he ever send that RSVP? It would be quite delightful if he took part in our wedding… play.”

For his part, Loki sighed, materializing their running list of guests to check it again. They had decided to go with a period of feasting and various delights that tickled both their senses of mischief, and as much as his lover was fond of his gladiator fights, it would be difficult to convince Thor into another one no matter how… nuptial the reason.

His brother’s name still glowed a faint purple, a mark of undecided acknowledgement. Loki frowned, poking the listing in order to bother the now-king with a reminder. En Dwi had helpfully provided invites that merged with his shapeshifting magic, and while the tablets were a baffling marvel of invention, the pattern of acceptances and rejections was bizarre.

“I think he might attend if the Hulk does,” He muttered, not overtly fond of the idea. Some of the Earthlings had accepted, and Loki thought that was rather out of curiosity’s sake. He was, rightfully, considered a menace on that planet, but what was a little bit of chaos between friends?

“A little bit, indeed,” His spouse murmured in amusement, head tucked onto his shoulder. Loki melted into the grasp, some of the tension of wedding planning draining from him at the snug embrace.

“This is a bit ridiculous,” He griped, waving around the scroll as it curled back up with a sharp snick. “We already married in order to get past customs, why do we need another wedding?”

“For the week-long feasting and gladiator fighting in our name?” En Dwi suggested, pressing a kiss to his neck that yet managed to imprint an amused curl of lips. Loki shivered, poking one of the man’s arms regardless for the gladiator suggestion, and was met with a shrug that set the two of them into a rocking sway.

It was… nice, and still novel despite them technically having been married for some time now.

En Dwi was content to let the matter rest for a moment, more concerned with the way their thoughts met and tangled in an equally luxurious, languid slide. It was one of his more favourite ways to kiss, and the joy of a partner capable of reciprocating was one of the finer pleasures in life. He supposed their haphazard, spontaneous bonding in order to get their conveniently-forged passports approved was only the tipping point of their admittedly equally as spontaneous relationship.

The thought that Loki had become one of the few entities both able and willing to interact with him so intimately sent a certain zing through him, and he tightened his grasp, pleased to hear the sigh and feel the subtle relaxation at the gesture. How lucky I am, En Dwi mused, letting the thought tangle into Loki’s mind, layered in an affection to a depth he was pleased but unaccustomed to showing.

It was a sentiment quickly pinged back to him, roiled and layered in the nuances of Loki’s particular flavour. “How about this,” His lover spoke, voice dropped into a rumbling groan at the entanglement of their thoughts, quicksilvered and heart-deep, “We’ll have a play of your gladiatorial ring, and leave spots open for volunteers to participate.”

En Dwi gasped in startled delight, turning Loki around for an enthusiastic kiss. “You, my dear,” He marveled, taking in the pleasing, bewildered flush across the other’s features, “Are an absolute genius. The best of both worlds! See, this sort of brilliance is why I married you.”

It took a moment for Loki to recover from the onslaught of gropingly enthusiastic adoration, but he managed to worm a hand flickering blue and cold onto his chest, matching with a sardonically arched brow, “Oh, not because of my ability to sneak us onto a new planet?”

He took the hand clasped to his breast and pressed kisses to its digits, delighting in the condensation chilling his lips and the flustered sound his spouse made at the gesture, “Both, I think,” Was his mild response, spoken with a waggle of brows and a nip at the fingers in his hold. The blush was rather flattering, he thought, tempted to let them deviate off-track. But alas- “I can see if anyone from Sakaar could be bribed with a few hot meals, hm?”

Loki tittered, tapping his fingers reprovingly against his spouse’s unfortunately distracting lips. “We shan’t be paying a cent for this wedding, will we?”

“Mmm, no, not if I can help it.” He replied unrepentantly, winking half for the habit and mostly to see how long it took for the other to start trembling, “A favour is a favour, after all. Even if I have to swindle for it.”

“I love you,” Loki sighed beatifically, reaching up to twine his fingers into En Dwi’s hair. Then, in a slightly less soppy tone, he asked, “You’re going to get us in so much trouble, aren’t you?”

He laughed, crooking a finger to let the invitations scroll that had been floating morosely all by its lonesome to realign itself into one of the many voluminous pockets in his robes, stealing another parry of kisses while he was at it.

“You would be magnificently bored if I didn’t, dearest. A little bit of chaos keeps you on your toes,” He punctuated the statement by lifting Loki by the waist, just enough to sweep his toes along the fashionably garish rug, a rather rewarding gasp meeting his efforts, “And then you’d be causing mischief elsewhere in the galaxy, without me along to entertain you.”

The image of a traipsing, much younger Loki flitted across his mind, a montage of youthful history flitting past him. En Dwi smirked at a few of the bashfully recollected memories, “Horses, dear? I didn’t know you were so adventurous.”

“It was one time,” Loki groused, too content anyway to move from the relaxed slouch against his spouse, “Hardly likely to happen again.”

His spouse stifled a laugh, the play at politeness speaking volumes of his thoughts. “That’s alright,” En Dwi mused, his own brand of mischief rife in his words, “We have plenty of ideas to occupy ourselves with.”

“Like a cake.”

“And lots of it, preferably,” He nodded, altogether too tickled by the entire concept of a wedding after they’ve already married. There was this bakery on Lotho that could be persuaded… I wonder how well cake travels in hyperspace.

“Only as good as the coolant, I’m afraid,” Loki interrupted his idling thoughts, huffing dramatically, “Thor and I found that one out the hard way.”

En Dwi stared in bafflement at his spouse, “Why were you transporting a cake?”

“Mjölnir.”

That… did not clear up the situation any, but this was presumably another one of those sibling things. He poked the list of invites again, changing Thor’s name to an acceptable green. A story like that was too unique to be left as a groused footnote! Perhaps the king would be so kind as to trade a story for a spot in the marriage play.

A sigh tickled at his throat. “You know,” Loki said, a shade petulant, “You could just ask Thor to come. He probably would if you did so nicely enough.”

Loki indubitably knew his brother better, but curiosity got the best of him. “… Why? He ransacked most of the stadium and stole my pleasure liner on the way out.”

It seemed logical, but apparently was not, judging by the combination of flat, pitying stare and colourful thoughts that contradicted it. “Because he’s dutiful,” His lover corrected, feeling strongly enough about the issue to detract a hand from where it was twirling En Dwi’s hair around his fingers to visually articulate his point, “Or some such. Honestly, I have no idea why he sticks to such antiquated ideals, but it’s certainly a valid point to be leveraged.”

En Dwi nodded slowly, brows furrowing as he slotted together this new dynamic into his understanding of Asgard royal family dynamics. “Well,” He said cheerfully, resolving anyway to drag the other Odinson by hook or by crook to their wedding, “At least we won’t have to invite Hela.”

“And thank the stars for that,” Loki muttered, “Don’t need that much doom and gloom for a solid week.”

Kitkat mewed in agreement from where they were perched near their feet. It seemed the kitten carried over its patron’s distance of all things dreary, fur puffed up in affront at the idea of his late sister attending the festivities. Loki shuffled carefully out of his spouse’s hug to pick up the kitten, smiling faintly at its vocal distaste, “Yes, I agree, the only fighting should be scripted and entirely fake.”

En Dwi pouted mournfully, making him huff and amend his statement, “Mostly fake.” The kitten squirmed, settling onto Loki’s shoulder, “And entirely entertaining, as it ought to be.”

“You know…” Loki’s spouse drawled, his eyes sparkling with a new idea, “We could always make the last feast day about our wedding.”

“Spectacularly astute, you are,” He replied dryly, “As all the days will be about our wedding.”

En Dwi huffed, and Loki thought it was a little unfair how attractive he looked even when ostensibly peeved. Still, the little spark of pride that pressed against his own mind acted as its own appeasement, making him lean into the arm around his waist.

“I meant about our first wedding, dear.” That statement had Loki nodding, a grin on his face as he recollected the scattered three weeks of travel as they hopped from planet to planet. “Nobody will ever believe we aren’t already married.”

“Nonsense,” He interjected smoothly, teasing lilt to his words, “We have plenty of family on my side that want us annulled.”

“And are thoroughly too late for that,” En Dwi replied smugly.

Loki squirmed himself, flushing at the smattering of memories his spouse brought up. He coughed, “Yes, quite.”

His spouse sighed thoughtfully. “… I still want to wear those shoes that- who was it? The woman with the knives-”

“Romanov?”

“- Yes, her. The shoes that she sent, they would be lovely with the new tunic we picked up at the market.”

Loki fixed En Dwi with an incredulous stare, “Crocs are not fashionable.”

“But they are comfortable!”

--

Author's Notes

Thor gifted Loki with a Norwegian Forest named Kitkat and Darcy is quite proud of being allowed to name it (Thor is an absolute sucker for a good pun and thought it was an excellent idea). It's a direct call-back to Freya's chariot of cats, and I think a sweet gesture of familial bonds between Loki and Thor.

[bitletsanddrabbles]

Theater vs. Books

One thing that has routinely shocked me in the Downton Abbey fandom is how little people seem to know about how TV works, particularly when compared to written fiction.

Examined logically, this should probably not be surprising. I’ve been involved off and on in school plays, church plays, acting camps, etc. for as long as I can remember. I actually went into university on an acting ticket, only to switch when I realized I’d get ulcers if I tried to make a living at it. Between writing classes and Dad going “Honey! The Vacation Bible School skit scripts are terrible again this year! Can you fix them?” I have way more scripting know how than I realize, not to mention directing since I then directed all the skits. I took a few combined study classes in college that involved film and, of course, my BA is creative writing, which does not make me the be all and end all of writing knowledge (there are people who haven’t taken a writing class in their lives who can out write me), but does mean that I have more idea what the different parts of a story are and how they fit together than someone who just took high school English.

However, one of my personal neurosis is that I know the education system I went through is substandard and that I am bad at research, therefore I expect the entire world to know more than I do. From a logical stand point this is rubbish, but try telling my psyche that when someone talks about how bad an actor is and then holds up a badly directed piece with a lousy script. (Guy in high school who insisted Nicole Kidman couldn’t act because Batman Forever, I am so looking at you.)

I mean, really. It doesn’t matter how much I’ve done or how much I know. If I am the only person on the planet who did not, at age five, win an academy award for my first screen play, which I also produced, directed, and starred it, everyone else should know more than me.

Don’t think I can’t see that trophy you’re hiding behind your back.

So for the sake of spreading awareness of what education I do have and helping my neurotic little mind cope with the reality that I’m not the least education person on earth, I’d like to make a few points on theater - both stage and film - versus the written word.

- Theater is an incredibly limited art form. Unlike prose where your narrator can spend pages taking you deep into a character’s psyche, most theater is restricted to communicating entirely thorough what can be seen and said in dialogue or monologue. Some theatrical pieces do use a narrator, but a lot of disadvantages to this in an acted piece (it creates pacing issues, people find it off putting, etc.), so it’s not common.  Now, since people perceive emotions differently based on their personal experience, getting an entire audience on board with a nuanced performance is basically impossible. Take sarcastic characters, for example. In a book, you can say that a character made a sarcastic joke that wasn’t meant to be malicious, but that people got offended anyway. Different people will read it different ways - some people will insist it was malicious despite the explicit statement it wasn’t, etc. - but the story has told you the impression you’re intended to get. In theater, your actor has to be sarcastic, the other actors react poorly, and even if you write in, “I was only joking, geeze”, it’s up to the audience to decide whether that was true or not.

So no matter how good your actors, directors, and writers are, it will always be tricky to nail down the intended authorial intent of any one scene or character.

- Theater requires a large budget. Writing does not. Seriously, these days technology is all about multitasking. It’s pretty much gotten to the point that you can buy a toaster and write a story on it. The most expensive books to write I know of are the early Harry Potter novels because JKR wrote in notebooks with pens. Oh yeah, and she bought coffee to drink while she did it. Now, you can argue that computers still cost a fair amount of money, but they’re pretty much a one time expenditure (unless you insist on upgrading or you break it or something basically not-inherent to computer owning).

Every time an actor walks on a stage or screen, they earn money. Every time a character changes clothes, that costs money. Every time there’s a scene (mostly stage) or location (mostly film) change, that costs money. Every time something catches fire, that costs money. Every rehearsal costs money. Theater is one, big shopping list.

- Theater has time limits. Books do not. One of the things in the budget for a theatrical production is space for that production to be seen. It’s a stage or a park or a movie theater or TV air time. All of that costs money and how much you can buy depends not only on how much money you have, but how much time the owners of the theater, park, TV station, etc. are willing to give you.

This means unlike book editors and publishers who can look at a work so stinking long no one would pay for it or want to hold it up long enough to read and go “Sorry, Mr. Tolkien, but we’re going to have to break this into three parts,” the people writing scripts need to try and meet a strict time limit - not shorter, not longer  - and if they go over, the editors have to actually take stuff out.

The closest thing writing really has to this is things like drabble challenges where you have to tell a story in an exact number of words. When these first hit Live Journal they were popular because they were a challenge. When they started losing favor, it was because 90% of the time you wound up sacrificing good writing for word count.

Theater, thankfully, is generally a bit more forgiving, but still. Telling a segment of story in a one hour time slot - or a full story in two hours - is not a walk in the park.

- Theater is not a one pony show. There are so many times I have seen people criticize an actor or director or script writer for something that is blatantly not their fault (see above), that I can’t even begin to count them. Theater is a group effort. If someone blows their lines, it’s not the script writer’s fault. If a director insists that an actor ham it up, that is not a reflection of the actor’s skills. There are times when directors actively screw up the action and the script writer doesn’t get a chance to fix it. An example of this is Downton Abbey, season two, where Anna and Ethel were supposed to be fluffing the couch cushions - the part you sit on - by dropping them. This was filmed as them dropping the throw pillows, which made no sense, and by the time Julian Fellows got to see the rushes, there wasn’t time (or money) to redo the scene. So we’re stuck with two maids who apparently don’t know how to fluff pillows and, if you do know how to fluff pillows and have not read the scripts with authors commentary, an audience who assumes that the writer was the person who got it wrong.

- In theater, especially film, mistakes are forever. This is more or less true in traditionally published writing as well, but it’s amendable. If an author makes a typo or gets off in their timeline or forgets where Dr. Watson’s war wound was in the last story, it’s set in stone for the already printed edition, but can, if the author so chooses, be corrected in later printings. Similarly, in stage theater a gaffed line is gaffed and there’s no un-gaffing it, but you can get it right in the next show.

An error in film is set in stone until someone decides to do a remake.

- In no institutionalized story telling medium is the audience comprised of one person. Unless someone is telling you a bedtime story, the story is not meant to cater solely to you. In fanfiction, which is amateur by definition, you can appeal to as niche a group as you like. In professional story telling, you need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible if you want to be successful. In theater, with it’s time constraints, this means every time spent on one plot line is time that can’t be spent on another plot line. In order to please the fans of character A, you have to take story time away from the fans of character B and vice versa. It’s a balancing act where you try to please everyone, and pleasing everyone is impossible. And everyone I’ve seen say “We really didn’t see enough of (x) in this show! We were robbed!” has a plot (y) that “served no purpose” that could have been sacrificed for their satisfaction, but guess what? Someone loved plot (y), wanted to see more of it, and thinks (x) could have been cut out to make that happen. The reason the creator gave us a little bit of both instead of a lot of one and nothing of the other is not because the don’t care about the fans of (x) or (y), but because they care equally about both of them.

They have to.

It’s their job.

[mentalisttraceur-long]

@intpdreamer replied to this post:

To not even go as far as ask for a definition of *root* insecurity, how would you define insecurity? Is it anything that causes fear? Anything that causes self-doubt? (In which case - does the degree of self doubt have to be inappropriate to be deemed an “insecurity”?)

I actually have been intending to write a definition post for "insecurity", because after understanding my own insecurities (and to a lesser extent others' insecurities) more and more, I recently realized no definition or explanation I have ever been exposed to actually explained it right, in a way that properly focused on the cognition mechanisms of it, the usefulness of it, or the empirically-learned by the brain logical-ness of it.

Insecurity is what happens when a mind has learned to predict that it will be hurt in some manner, even if only by the chronic absence of positive experience.

Insecurity is what happens when within the futures the mind is predicting, the good-enough outcomes have too little total probability mass/density.

Lucky you everyone, you just triggered a very important rant!

No, this needs big words, that's how important this is:

Important Rant

Step 1 - Prediction Functions

Remember that the human brain is in large part a prediction machine - that is one of its main functions and purposes, and it is subconsciously predicting all the time.

At any given moment, our brain is running a bunch of "prediction functions" with all of our current raw experiences and mental state as inputs (sensory data, internally maintained world model, memories, emotions, and so on), and those prediction functions spit out what experiences will come next, which update the world model and are themselves experiences and thus get fed into more prediction functions, over and over recursively, until the brain runs out of relevant and habituated prediction functions.

These prediction functions are instantaneous by human standards: when new information comes in, they happen faster than we even consciously notice that new information.

Technical detail below; feel free to scroll to step 2.

Prediction functions habituate thusly:

Neurons are regularly growing new connections, this works even if the growth is purely random but there might be any number of evolved heuristic optimizations to make it grow faster.

Neurons are regularly discarding connections whose firings are not reinforced or maybe even "deinforced", and reinforcing those that are reinforced.

How are they reinforced or deinforced? With brain chemicals various parts if the brain squirt around of course, but in response to what? Well:

The brain is always pattern matching different cognition together. A couple obvious sources to compare the result of any given ripple of fired neurons connections would be our raw sensory organ data and our slow conscious thinking. Two more will be described shortly. There may be others.

The pattern-matching wetware for each of these comparisons is always comparing its inputs and squirting out chemicals signaling good or bad pattern-matches, which get circulated around. This concept is enough to work, but you can devise optimizations, and evolution may have already implemented a bunch of them.

The prediction functions are pattern-matched with each other. This helps new prediction functions get developed and reinforced faster, even if they cannot share the same wiring with the older ones, because of too much logical difference or because they don't fully cover the same cases.

Stronger reinforcements due to trauma or other intense experiences are possible, causing neurons to retain and keep reinforcing connections which would normally get pruned out. This is probably done by certain brain parts being responsible for releasing the right type or amount or combination of brain chemicals or otherwise signaling in response to specific severe-enough signals, and then either neurons directly responding to that by treating that as a vastly stronger reinforcement for those connections that matched up with that event the right way, or probably a more advanced system where traumatic memories are stored redundantly or differently in brain parts which themselves are pattern-matching wetware for reinforcing prediction functions.

Note that this means that at any moment there may be any number of "ephemeral" or "nascent" prediction functions "implemented" by the brain, many of which are nonsensical or wrong, and they will be kept or culled as they empirically prove themselves accordingly, but also that prediction functions can get kept even if they were only correct in our earlier specific circumstances, and that older prediction functions might be contributing to the reinforcement or deinforcement of new prediction functions.

So the brain optimistically generates new connections, lets them fire as they will, and the ones that pattern match raw sensory data or conscious slow cognition or maybe each other or other sources get rewarded and retained.

Step 2 - Prediction Pyramids

The result is one or more final predictions logically resting on what I initially called "prediction pyramids".

One pyramid for each final prediction, where the ground at the base is all the inputs, and the root point is a prediction.

Each layer of the pyramid represents all the prediction functions which had the opportunity to execute at the same time - if a prediction depends on the result of a previous prediction, then the pyramid is "higher".

The pyramids can overlap, of course - some prediction functions might cause more than one new prediction function to activate, and so on.

When the predictions are mutually exclusive, that's just our mind seeing multiple possibilities, with how likely each one feels being determined by how strongly and thoroughly those prediction pyramids have been reinforced for similar situations before.

Before we even finish consciously processing what's just come in through our senses right this moment, the brain has already run through many prediction pyramids, at least to some significant height.

Technical detail below; feel free to scroll to step 3.

If we want to get more formal, we can think of them as "prediction trees", using tree in the mathematical or graph theory sense: each node is one habituated prediction function, the output of each node is a prediction, so the root is the final prediction.

Or if you want you can include the raw experiences in the tree and then those are the leaf nodes and the prediction functions are the non-leaf nodes.

If you want to complicate the picture further by representing

how the raw experiences may get fed into some or all of the prediction functions and not just the initial ones, and how prediction functions can in turn update the world model and thus new raw experiences, or

the overlap of multiple prediction trees using the same prediction functions,

then it turns into a directed acyclic graph (DAG).

We can keep going, because in practice it's kinda like a partially cyclic graph which just has some nodes that do not participate in cycles. A directed partially-acyclic graph, or DPAG, if you will.

Keep going with this long enough and eventually you're just representing an actual modern neural net implementation, or something like one.

For practical introspection, just the idea of prediction trees or pyramids is most of the value, and usually good enough.

Also!

There is also a complication I have been skipping: maybe some prediction functions share neurons. So besides data dependencies there is also a possible bottleneck in that case, and reinforcement of prediction functions actually doubles as increasing or decreasing the priority - maybe a neuron has some way of being conditioned to respond more readily to one signal versus another.

Or maybe this is simply prevented at a higher level - even if we imagine just very simple neurons that can only decide to fire on all output synapses or not on any, in responce to a strong enough input on one or more of its inout synapses, with only one neurotransmitter available, even then overlapping prediction functions would simply either misfire too often and get disenforced, or else prove accurate enough and maybe only cause occasional subtle errors.

And remember the idea about prediction functions being pattern-matched against each other?

Notice how these ideas combine: if you have two overlapping prediction functions, and that is the bottleneck in critical situations, and you need to shave off those tiny fractions of a second, then simply keep practicing at that edge or your performance envelope, and gradually a new copy or almost-copy of that original prediction function will grow and get reinforced which doesn't overlap with one that has to fire at the same time.

Basically, the height of your prediction pyramid/tree/DAG/DPAG is more formally determined not just by data dependencies but also refractory periods and any activation at the same time on overlapped neurons.

Step 3 - Prediction Substitution

Of course the brain also heuristically "cheats" to optimize this to be faster and take less energy, which is why this is able to stay fast no matter how tall the prediction pyramid gets.

If a second prediction is reinforced enough for immediately following an earlier one (that is to say if prediction one fires on some input, and prediction two then fires right after because of the result of prediction one), then the brain will simply eventually grow a prediction function that produces the second prediction directly for the initial input.

If two different prediction functions or pyramids are too consistent with their results, without in some situations producing enough different but still valuable/reinforced results, one will eventually be removed.

In other words, the brain will always try to flatten and simplify the prediction pyramids, eliminate all that nuanced reasoning in between. (If we want to resist this, we have to make a point to think and maybe even regularly put ourselves into situations in ways that keep discerning the difference.)

This is why introspection past a certain point, and extracting the logic from inside our intuitions, is part reverse-engineering and part historical inference - because the brain will readily optimize out the original reasoning/justification/"prediction pyramid" behind a given reaction!

The brain will substitute simpler or shorter prediction pyramids for complex or tall ones every chance it gets.

Step 4 - Emotional Reaction

Some parts of the brain are constantly streaming in this prediction data (or some reduced form of it as a heuristic optimization).

They react by activating some physiological process or releases some chemicals (neurotransmitters, hormones, whatever) into the brain accordingly, which we in turn consciously perceive as the often "immediate" emotional reaction.

Remember, all of the above happens basically pre-consciously, basically instantaneously by human conscious thinking speeds.

But why a reaction to a prediction? We can have raw reactions to raw experiences like pain and pleasure, that's obvious. But a prediction is this abstract idea thing, isn't it?

No, because what is the mind predicting? What is it a prediction of? What is the "language" or "format" of a raw prediction in a mind? Raw experiences.

Up at the start of the rant I said that the prediction functions produce "what experiences will come next", and this is a key detail.

At the level of these prediction functions, every single prediction the brain makes represents a raw experience, some of which include pain or pleasure or are otherwise experientially positive or negative, and our brain is ultimately reacting to that.

Step 5 - The Analysis

This, this is what I keep talking about when I mention "raw experience prediction analysis". The reverse-engineering of the pyramids of prediction functions in our mind, many of which have been substituted out for simpler heuristics over the years, to finally figure out why we do what we do, react how we react, feel how we feel, think how we think, and want what we want.

The realization that everything, everything about what motivates our minds, and maybe even all possible minds, can be understood as reactions to one or more interlinked chains of predictions of raw experience - that, that is the "raw experience prediction epiphany".

We apply that enough, while being ready to look at ourselves as unflatteringly as needed to do so, and eventually, the view we get of our mind is profoundly explanatory, comprehensive, predictive, and empowering as a result.

There are some things about how minds work that this doesn't cover, but everything it doesn't cover is far easier to satisfactorily explain with much simpler ideas. And the more time passes the more I find things I initially thought I understood well enough without this, only to find that this enriches it.

So anyway, "insecurity"...

... should make more sense now.

Our mind is constantly predicting raw experiences, based on what it has empirically learned from past experiences.

Our mind reacts negatively whenever it predicts it's experiences will be sufficiently preference-pleasure negative.

An insecurity is whenever our mind has learned to predict that its experiences will be below that threshold. So insecurity can be anywhere from intensely immediate to lightly gnawing about the indefinite future; anywhere from extremely specific to inscrutably general. The essential part is the below that threshold, a certain negative reaction, a compulsion to prevent that outcome, starts to kick it. It's a gradient, usually to some degree proportional to how severely below the threshold it is, but also importantly, how much our brain believes the outcome could be better if only we knew could do something about it.

But the actual follow-up beyond that point, including what emotional reactions are felt, is itself dependent on the prediction functions and other habituated cognition. Some examples different people might experience include:

Desperate or needy or manipulative behavior to try to get a wanted/needed thing.

Rage and hostility and violence because it helped them prevent hurting or to get their way before.

Eager sexual arousal because that helped stop hurt or got them safety and approval before.

Some other behavior which modifies the situation to temporarily soothe or mask a want or need with other experiences.

Going non-verbal or freezing up because their brain literally cannot think of any action which would be predictive of improving the situation.

Physiological activation of the body as in fight-or-flight just-in-case, without any compelled action.

Generalized anxiety, a weaker form of the previous point.

Except an insecure mind is prevented, by the same life strokes that cause and sustain the insecurity, from developing particularly reliable ways of avoiding those negative outcomes - if they had those, they wouldn't be insecure.

So often these reactions are not actually constructive to the goal, because the person simply doesn't know how to do that, or were constructive but only under particular circumstances (often less healthy ones, like abusive relationships, etc).

But just as often, the reactions are very constructive, sometimes even perfectly executed, skilled preventions or mitigations of the predicted negative outcomes, and otherwise totally justifiable independent of the insecurity.

The essence of insecurity, and it's literally in the name but I spent years missing it, is the lack of feeling secure, assured, confident, certain (about our raw experience being good enough in the future).

In saying that an insecurity is whenever our mind predicts that its experiences will be below some threshold, and feels negatively compelled to change that, I deliberately left unspecified whether or not it is objectively sound for the brain to make that prediction, or whether or not the fundamental compulsion to avoid the outcome is adaptive, or whether or not that threshold is in some way at the right level.

Those are all important questions, and touch on the essential point that insecurity isn't just this defect that some people have, but rather an essential ingredient of cognition for most people to some degree. But they are otherwise irrelevant to describing the essence of what an insecurity is.

[thecorteztwins]

Character Flaws: How To Do Them (And How Not To)

Hi there, I’m going to talk about character flaws today! And I’m going to start with a very unpopular statement----I think flawless characters, or characters with minimal flaws, are just fine. It just depends on what kind of character you want to portray. Some character roles are SUPPOSED to be paragons of virtue or sweet innocent angels, just as some characters are SUPPOSED to be dastardly evil-doers or complex nuanced grimdark antiheroes. What matters is whether it’s what you INTEND, and how to pull it off. Also, I’m not an expert. These are opinions. Feel free to agree or disagree, take what you like and leave the rest, etc. I am not an authority in ANY way, and your thoughts are just as valid as mine. That said, let’s start. Strap in, this got long, I’m sorry.

There are three general types of flaws that you can give to a character: INTERVIEW FLAWS aka CINNAMON ROLL FLAWS aka NON-FLAWS I call them this because they’re the sort of “flaws” that you would say you have at a job interview when asked what your flaws are. They’re “flaws” that make someone actually sound better---more moral, or more endearing, or more sympathetic, etc. Things like “too loyal” or “kind to a fault” or “too protective of his friends”. They’re the sort of flaws that “cinnamon roll” characters typically have. These actually can become very damning mega-flaws if taken to the extreme, but more on that later; this paragraph is for when they’re still solidly in “interview flaw” territory. A big aspect of these “flaws” is that they only hurt the character, if anyone. They will seldom, if ever, negatively affect another person. If they do hurt someone else, it will often be in a way that is totally justified to the reader (the character who is “too protective” beating up someone who was being a jerk to his friends) or really not the character’s fault at all (a naive character being manipulated by a bad guy into revealing something important) Whatever trouble they get in will usually be done in a way that is meant to make the reader either feel bad for them, or see them in a positive light for it. If this is the sort of character you want to go for, that is a-okay! Cinnamon rolls have their place in a story, and they can be just as beloved by fans as more grimdark characters. The only problem comes is when someone tries to sell their character as “flawed” when actually they’re just one of these. Or, alternatively, tries to sell the character as one of these when actually they’re one of the categories below. But if it’s exactly what you intended? Great! NORMAL FLAWS Exactly what it says---flaws that a normal person would have. Things like jealousy, snobbery, misanthropy, negativity, bad tempers, irresponsibility, laziness, not taking things seriously when they should, the list goes on and on. This is probably the widest category, since what flaw you pick and how it manifests can span the range from being almost a non-flaw but not quite, to nearly a mega-flaw. It also depends on the character who has it, what they’re like otherwise, and why they have it. For instance, someone who is unjustly hostile to someone trying to help them because they’re suspicious due to being tricked, exploited, or abused in the past by people pretending to be well-meaning, is a lot more sympathetic than someone who just doesn’t think they need help because they see themselves as perfect and don’t like correction. Both still fall under the “normal” category most of the time, but are coming from very different places, and will be perceived differently by most readers. So, which to use? It all depends what you’re going for with your character! MEGA FLAWS The big ones. The ones that will really make others dislike your character. Things like real-life bigotry (as in, being homophobic, not hating elves), gleeful bullying and abusiveness, toxic egomania, blaming others (especially innocent characters) for their mistakes, sexual misconduct, and kicking puppies, to name a few. Sometimes, these can be used to make audiences hate the characters instantly, but that’s actually not always guaranteed. A great many characters that are among the most popular in their respective fandoms have one or more of these traits. Sometimes, that’s just because people love a good villain, but other times it’s because the character’s reasons for these flaws, or the character’s overall personality in general apart from the flaws, are very compelling and interesting. Just as some people love cinnamon rolls, some people prefer darker characters like these, and much like preferring different ice cream flavors, neither is superior to the other. These kinds of flaws also don’t always translate to truly inhuman, awful people either. Sometimes a character may actually be MORE human for them. The protagonist in a novel I once read was raised by his grandparents because his mother, who gave birth to him as a teen, hated him. She wanted nothing to do with him as a child, and outright told him she hated him when he was just barely an adult. The protagonist didn’t know why for most of his life, but eventually found out it was because he was born a twin, and his twin brother died when they were babies. He was born big, healthy, and strong, whereas his brother had been tiny and weak and sick, probably because he sapped the bulk of the nutrients in the womb, which sadly is something that sometimes happens. The mother was devastated by the death of her weaker son, and blamed the surviving one, feeling he was a monster baby that killed his sibling, not to mention resented how he was fawned over by the rest of her family when they had treated her like dirt, including her own parents. This woman was not meant as sympathetic to readers. It was pretty clear to me that the writer wanted us to see her as horrible. And what she did was completely horrible indeed. She blamed an innocent baby for something not possibly his fault, and held that against him his whole life. That’s unforgivably awful, and there’s no excuse for it. Yet it’s such a human reaction that it made me feel for her. People often are illogical and awful in ways like this, it’s very believable to me that a human being would feel this way. It was meant to make her an irredeemable strawman, but my reaction was to see her now as less of a 2D “bad mother” cutout, and more of a person. Sometimes, it’s the worst in people that can win us over, because that can sometimes be the most human part of them. Note that this will often be divisive; I’m sure a lot of readers actually did hate this woman all the more for this, and that’s a totally valid reaction too. However, if you wish to make your character truly despicable, hurting children or cute animals is generally a good way to go; most readers won’t forgive that (though I’ve seen it happen) That said, be warned that making your character sexy or tragic (especially in combination) will inevitably make some fans fawn over them regardless of how evil they are, and there’s not much you can do about it. Someone is ALWAYS going to find the bad guy hot/sympathetic even when you’re not SUPPOSED to. Now that we’ve covered the different categories of GOOD ways to write flaws, here are some ways that I see people failing at writing flaws: INFORMED FLAWS Informed flaws are flaws that the writer CLAIMS the character has, but never actually show up. For instance, they SAY that this character is standoffish, has a temper, and can be cruel, but only ever write him as being lovably surly at worst, and typically very tolerant and patient with others (especially cute children or cinnamon bun types) Or they claim that the character is shy and insecure, but here they are trying out for the lead in the school play without anyone pushing them to do it. This is often due to the author being overly affectionate towards their character. In the first example, they want their character to be a tough guy, but an ENDEARING tough guy, and not risk him doing anything that the audience might possibly dislike him for. So they go overboard with showing his “soft” moments, while never showing the “hard” ones that are what would make the “soft” ones actually special and unusual. In the second example, maybe the character is just shy and insecure in a different way (like they’re comfortable on-stage because there’s no actual interaction with people, and crumble when in real conversations) but more likely, they’re just acting out-of-character because the author WANTS them to be the lead in the play, regardless of how little sense it makes for them to try out and get the part. Informed flaws are basically a failure of a “show, don’t tell” rule. We’re TOLD that this character has a flaw, but we’re either never shown it, or shown the exact opposite. For instance, we may be told that this character never opens up to people because of her dark past, but it sure doesn’t seem that way if she immediately starts talking about that dark past to first man who shows interest in her as she falls into his arms. And it’s hard to take a writer’s claim that their character is “humble” with any seriousness if that character has a habit of bringing up his numerous talents and accomplishments in every conversation. And you may SAY that a character tends to get jealous, but how do we KNOW if she never encounters anyone she’s jealous of? INCONSEQUENTIAL FLAWS The character is a rude abrasive jerk, but everyone likes her immediately anyway! Maybe they can instantly see past her snarky surface to the sensitive soul beneath, or maybe they respect her toughness and candor. Some people have a problem with her attitude, but they’re either prudish sticks-in-the-mod, overly sensitive namby-pambies, sexists who are threatened by a strong woman, or they come around to respecting/liking her in the end! The character hates breaking rules and getting into trouble; he craves approval from authority, and will tell on his friends to get it. Fortunately, he’s never put in this position, or, if he does, his friends understand and forgive him, and may even agree that he did the right thing. The character is impulsive and acts on their first thought, if they think at all. Luckily, her assumptions prove correct (or at least lead her to the right place) and her reckless actions not only don’t cause any problems, they save the day! Everyone is proud of her, and no one scolds her for anything she did along the way that might have broken protocol or endangered other people. The character is super hostile anyone breaking his routine...but then his routine never gets broke in the story or any of his interactions. He’s also terrified of animals, but luckily no animals appear in the story. And he’s an asshole at work, but none of the story takes place there and none of the other characters are his co-workers. See the problem? None of these flaws MATTER. They either don’t come up in the story at all, and thus never get a chance to affect the character, or if they do come up, they don’t cause any problems for the character, and in fact may benefit them. That’s not a flaw. It doesn’t matter if your character is a freaking SERIAL KILLER if they never face any kind of issue because of it, it’s not a flaw in the context of the story unless it works AGAINST your character in some way. ACCIDENTAL FLAWS These often overlap with inconsequential flaws, and are kind of the opposite of informed flaws. In the case of informed flaws, the author claims to us that the character has a flaw, but then fails to show it (or shows the opposite). In the case of accidental flaws, the author claims that the character DOESN’T have a certain flaw...and then proceeds to give them exactly that. For instance, how many times have you been reading a novel where the heroine INSISTS that she’s very plain and not pretty at all, then proceeded to give us an extremely flattering description of herself? How many times have you read something where the protagonist was acting like a huge jerk, but you got the impression from how it was written that the author expected us to be cheering him on, and anyone who thought he was indeed a jerk was portrayed as always unlikable and in the wrong? This is a case where the writer is either so oblivious or so in love with their own character that they become unaware of how obnoxious their darling is actually coming off. They rush to justify everything she does, they portray any opposition as simply evil or jealous or stupid, they overlook any kind of actual harm that he’s doing to anyone else, and they often make the villains end up accidentally sympathetic by comparison because the hero we’re supposed to love and admire is just so unbearable. The writer has made a very flawed character---but they didn’t mean or want to, and that’s the problem. WEAKNESSES Weaknesses aren’t flaws. Being clumsy, having a physical disability, or being a member of an oppressed/disliked group is not a flaw. Flaws are personality traits. They can be the RESULT of things like trauma or mental disorders, so they’re not always changeable or the person’s fault, but they’re still part of WHO they are, not WHAT, and something they can be held accountable for. If your character’s only “flaws” are being deaf and having PTSD and being an elf in a world that doesn’t like elves, those aren’t flaws, they’re weaknesses or drawbacks. If they’re lacking in some skill, such as fencing or shooting or flipping hamburgers, that’s also not a flaw. It could be a flaw if having the skill is important yet they refuse to work on it (ex: a police officer who doesn’t bother to improve his aim) but it is not in itself a flaw. Hell, it’s not even a weakness unless it’s relevant---I don’t know how to use a gun, but there’s no reason that it’s immediately relevant to my life to do so, so I wouldn’t count it as a weakness or a flaw. TIPS: - Try to be objective as you can about your character, even if you love them. Keep in mind that the other characters around them are people with thoughts and feelings too, and that if your character is rude, cruel, annoying, or off-putting to them, then they may have good reason for disliking or losing patience with your character, no matter what good reason your character has for being that way. If your atheist character trashes the faith of a religious character, it doesn’t matter if they grew up in a household of religious abuse, they’re still being a jerk and the religious character has a right to think so. If your character loses their temper and wrecks a store, it doesn’t matter that they were provoked or are really a nice person, the store owner is still well within their rights to press charges and demand compensation. Avoid vilifying other characters, and take their pain and personhood as seriously as you do the main character’s own. This alone will open the door to showing a lot of flaws that your character has, which will let you then decide if that’s the amount you WANT your character to have, or if you should change some things. - Any trait, including very good traits, can be bad taken to the extreme. For instance, let’s take a common “interview flaw”--- loyal no matter what. A lot of people don’t realize just how dark this can get. But what if your character is so loyal to their friend that they overlook it not only when that friend treats them badly, but treats other people too? What if they discover the friend has done something terrible, like is abusing his wife? What if they’re loyal to a fault to a supervillain organization that is actively hurting or even killing people, and they KNOW this? You can take this some pretty terrible places if you want. You don’t HAVE to, it can remain in “cinnamon roll” or “normal” territory if that’s what you want, but if you’re looking to make a more dark scenario, remember that you don’t need to rely on inherently “dark” flaws like “he loves to hurt people”---the most mild and even positive traits can become disturbing and evil if taken far enough. - If you’re trying to make someone MORE flawed, look at the flaws they already have and consider how it might hurt OTHER PEOPLE instead of just the character. For instance, if your character is very insecure, perhaps instead of just thinking about how worthless or untalented they are, they are overly-critical, even mean, to people who are even less talented. Or when someone else is more talented at something they wish they were better at, they scrutinize that person to find bad things about them, or even just assume things about them---like “sure, she’s a much better artist than me, but she’s ugly and she can’t write worth a damn” or “he may have a girlfriend and be good-looking, but he’s dumb as a brick and probably a bully like all dumb jocks”. An attitude like that takes your character from simply being the purely sympathetic sort of insecure, to someone who is actually doing something wrong because of it. Again, this is if you WANT your character to have more of an edge; it doesn’t suit some characters, and that’s ok. - By the same token, if you want to take some edge OFF your character and make them less flawed, look at how their present flaws might negatively affect others, and decrease that. If  the character you WANT to be a “cinnamon bun” lashes out at people who just don’t understand her pain/genius/specialness/goodness/etc, maybe reconsider that. - If you want to get ideas for flaws, look at the things other people do that annoy you. What are your pet peeves? Maybe you hate “Karen” behavior, or people who don’t take proper care of their pets, people who think they’re funny or clever when they’re not, people who interrupt you when you’re talking, people who make assumptions, people you feel are fishing for attention, people who believe or share false information without checking it first, people who never seem to listen or learn, people who are always late, people who feel entitled to something, and so on. See if any of them fit your character. Be sure to be honest with yourself---yes, you REALLY love your tough guy character, and you HATE when smokers just throw their butts on the ground...but maybe he would? And maybe he WOULD be snappish with someone who didn’t deserve it? And maybe he WOULD be quick to stereotype others, such as labeling them privileged preps based on how they dress? Think about it. - Zodiac signs are another good place to get ideas for flaws, as are Myers-Briggs personality types, and anything else that categorizes people into different personality types. Note that your character need not actually, say, have that sign for their zodiac, it’s just good places to get base personality ideas. - Try to keep your voice out of your character’s mouth, and let their actions speak for themselves. Whether you want to portray the world’s sweetest cinnamon roll (tired of that phrase yet?) or the worst dumpster fire in the universe, what works to show that isn’t for your character or those around them to TALK about how sweet/terrible your character is, what works is to actually have them do and say things that are sweet/terrible! - Get second opinions! You want to make your character MORE of a jerk? You’re worried they’re TOO MUCH of a jerk? You think your villain is too soft? You want to add moral ambiguity to your hero? Get other people to look at your work! Friends are great for this, but what’s even better is people who aren’t particularly close to you, and won’t hold back on honest advice and feedback.If you want to see how your characters come off to a set of unbiased eyes, the best way is to ask someone! - Remember that everyone is different and no matter how well you portray a character the way you intend, there will always be someone who views them in a way you didn’t want them to at all, even if it makes no sense for them to do so. Make peace with it. Don’t dismiss everyone by saying they “didn’t understand” or “read it wrong” or “are interrogating the text from the wrong perspective”, but by the same token don’t get too hung up on making sure every single reader views every single character the exact way you wanted. It just won’t happen. Just do your best.

[babyybitchhh]

Shikamaru or Senku?

Damn, anon. You really just came for my throat like that. I don’t know what I’ve done to hurt you but, from the bottom of my heart, I apologize. I swear it won’t happen again. 🤧

Okay, okay. All jokes aside. This is a real toughie and I’m gonna have to reveal just how much of a dumb bitch I really am to explain my answer. Yes, I fall back on the zodiac to fill in any gaps in characterization and determine just how compatible I actually am with fictional men. Sue me. As per usual, this post got a bit away from me so if you want to skip down to the TL;DR for my final answer, please do. I encourage it, actually. lol 

Ishigami Senkuu

January 4th - Capricorn

Strengths: leadership, responsible, disciplined, self-control, good managers

Weaknesses: lack of compassion, know-it-all, unforgiving, condescending, expecting the worst

“Capricorn is a sign that represents time and responsibility, and its representatives are traditional and often very serious by nature. These individuals possess an inner state of independence that enables significant progress both in their personal and professional lives. They are masters of self control and have the ability to lead the way, make solid and realistic plans, and manage many people who work for them at any time. They will learn from their mistakes and get to the top based solely on their experience or expertise.”

“Known for their rational approach to life and their emotions are often well hidden from plain view. Not only is it imperative for them to stick to the realm of absolute intimacy to open their heart for someone but they are often not fully aware of their feelings before hardships occur. This will put pressure on their love life as they have to make a strict and specific equation out of everything, distancing them from carefree and smiling partners who wish to have fun in a relationship.”

“There is nothing easy in the love life of these individuals but they will not see this as the end of the world. They have enough passion and warmth carried within and if mutual respect is found and strong boundaries respected both ways, they will be prepared to let someone into their world and protect them with their shield.”

“As an earth sign, Capricorn has a powerful and instinctive sensuality which expresses itself in a straightforward and natural way without the need for props, frills or adornment. Is it somewhat bereft of romance? Well maybe, but what Capricorn lacks in the way of sentimentality, it more than makes up for in terms of responsibility and discretion ... once it overcomes its initial reserve and caution, it can usually be relied upon to give full satisfaction, no matter how long it takes. As with most other things in its life, Capricorn prefers to take its time over its lovemaking, and its highly developed self-control gives it the stamina to stay the course.”

Nara Shikamaru

September 22 - Virgo

Strengths: pure emotion, loyal, analytical, kind, hardworking, practical

Weaknesses: sensitive to toxic environments, shyness, worry, overly critical of self and others, all work and no play

“Virgo’s are always paying attention to the smallest details and their deep sense of humanity makes them one of the most careful of the zodiac. Their methodical approach to life ensures that nothing is left to chance and although they are often tender, their heart might be closed for the outer world. This is a sign often misunderstood, not because they lack the ability to express but because they won’t accept their feelings as valid, true or even relevant when opposed to reason.”

“Feelings of love and life may be a bit like ocean waves that move with the current. With so much water flowing through their primal nature, their rational mind will easily fade around those that touch their heart. This makes them vulnerable to all sorts of betrayals and wrong compromises along the way. They need to be stable and firm in understanding and deciphering their own feelings before anyone else’s or they might lower their guard too far down.”

“They need a partner who is as fragile as they are but also someone who is aware of the strength of their emotional world.”

“ Many Virgos aren’t particularly comfortable with demonstrative displays of emotion or dramatic, over-the-top outbursts. Normally quite shy by nature, they prefer to express their affection in tangible, down-to-earth ways: love for them is about actions, not just empty words. Big worriers who don’t find it easy to show their feelings, Virgos are prone to internalizing their anxieties about their physical desirability – frequently making themselves ill in the process – and can often be a bit uptight around sex. To balance this, they need lots of reassurance that they’re actually perfectly okay!”

Now ... y’all can correct me if I’m wrong, but that all sounds pretty spot on to me. Like, it’s accurate. I’ve mentioned this a few times when replying to comments on my Dr Stone fics, but I really enjoy how nuanced Senkuu is because there’s a lot going on under the surface of his cool facade. He’s very task-oriented and objective about what needs to be done, but he’s also extremely sympathetic towards others even if he tries to play it off. It seems hard for him to be honest about his feelings because, frankly, they’re not rational enough for his liking, so he tries to find ways to justify them. On the flip side, Shikamaru is a little similar with his cool, objective-oriented outer shell but he’s conversely quite sensitive. Like, hella sensitive. That boy is not anywhere near as tough or impenetrable as he acts and I do think at least part of that is a defense mechanism of some sort to shield his heart, even before Asuma died but especially afterward. They’re both tough to penetrate emotionally and they guard their true feelings so well that it actually does manage to fool people. I mean both the characters around them and also the fans watching at home. So at this point, there doesn’t seem to be a conclusive winner and it should come down to a simple matter of preference, right?

Well, let’s see what the stars have to say about throwing a Leo into the mix.

Capricorn + Leo

“... have one thing in common and it’s their awareness of self. It will be a rare occasion when Leo is attracted to Capricorn but the other way around seems more probable.”

“Both are extremely devoted, especially to each other. Although they may seem to be an unlikely couple on the surface, their love will grow as they discover similarities.”

“Like Barbie and Ken, you’re a good looking pair ... your shared love of achievement and impressive ambition sends power couple fantasies running through your heads. If you’re out to conquer the same goal, your combined skills make you quite an awesome force to behold.”

“The physical intimacy between a Leo and a Capricorn is where this mismatched couple can come together. Leo is hot, physical, feminine, [and] enjoys giving pleasure. In a day to day life, Capricorn is reserved and proper but when it comes to sex, he wants it wild, woolly, rough and tumble. Lucky for him, Leo has a similar sexual appetite. It’s in bed where Leo has the power to make customarily reserved Capricorn throw caution to the wind and become a bit crazy in love.”

“What you’ve got here is one sign with a forensic eye for detail and another who paints with an incredibly broad brushstroke. The possibility of driving each other crazy is real.”

“Capricorn is more likely to be attracted to Leo than the other way around - they’ll watch the lion prance, preform and captivate with their personality and either instantly dislike or feel uncomfortably drawn to them.”

The good: both seek success, Capricorn teaches Leo patience, Leo teaches Capricorn passion

The bad: Leo thinks Capricorn is a cold fish, Capricorn thinks Leo is a show off, it all gets too hard to compromise

Virgo + Leo

“Their rationality might turn into an intellectual battle for sexual dominance, that is, if they ever reach the point in which they both want to have sex with each other.”

“Leo shows Virgo good times and fun, and introduces the spontaneity that is often missing from Virgo’s life. Virgo teaches Leo patience and focuses their intellectual energy.”

“Leo plays cheerleader to pessimistic Virgo while levelheaded Virgo steps into the therapists role, mirroring Leo’s angst until a breakthrough is reached. This is a safe emotional harbor for both of you.”

“Virgo and Leo see their time together in bed as a celebration of their love and commitment. Both are hopeless romantics so there will be plenty of physical foreplay, including morning kisses, long evening embraces, candles, flowers, and massages. A creative and open minded Leo is always willing to try something new and Virgo, who is no prude either, will be a willing follower. Together these two can reach sexual heights they’ve never experienced before.”

“A comedy of errors ...Leo and Virgo are forever working through misunderstandings and mending communication fences. Often it’s as if they speak different languages.”

“Leo pounces and Virgo, invariably, plays hard to get, rebuffing the lion and appearing completely underwhelmed by their charms. This of course drives Leo into a frenzy of heightened passion - they pull out their A game and deliver super hot maneuvers. The funny thing is that such scenarios are usually Virgo devised and orchestrated. They’ve probably observed the flamboyant lion in action - noted that everyone submits to their charisma and decided to go in the opposite direction. If played correctly Leo becomes a lovesick pussy cat ...”

“Virgo is a bit of a tease - for much of the “falling in Love” phase they love-starve Leo who shamelessly begs for morsels of affection. It actually makes the attraction between them electric.”

The good: Virgo teaches Leo patience, Leo teaches Virgo to have fun, they are fascinated by each other

The bad: messy Leo drives neat freak Virgo crazy, negative Virgo brings Leo down, poor communication abounds

So ... what did we take from all that? Well, first of all, both of them are apparently going to teach me patience which I admit I sorely need. Conversely, I’d bring passion, fun and spontaneity to their lives. On one hand, Senkuu seems like he’d be much more drawn to me than Shikamaru because even though I do stay drinking my dumb bitch juice, we have similar driving forces in our lives and I’m not a complete idiot. I love science, especially when it comes to learning about space and how the world works, just not the mathematical portion. That part can eat my ass tbh. On the other hand though, if Shikamaru and I could sort of find a common ground to stand on it sounds like it would be a very healthy relationship for the both of us which I need so badly it’s kind of not funny. Like, I’m self-aware enough to realize what I need out of a hypothetical relationship and it (unfortunately) is the kind of emotional connection that facilitates healing and growth rather than stagnation. I don’t think either of them would just sit there and watch me flounder in my angst, as one of those quotes put it, but everything is pointing at Shikamaru being much more well equipped to tackle the problem while simultaneously needing the same in return, which I would be more than happy to give him.

TL;DR: I actually cannot pick between them. I just can’t do it. I love them both for strangely similar but also drastically different reasons and, objectively, I can’t say I like one more than the other. Both give me soft, doki doki feelings that I don’t know what to do with and even after thinking on it for about two hours, I’m incapable of saying with definitive certainty that I like one more. So all I can go off of is what the zodiac has to say about our compatibility which is pointing at both potential relationships being rocky with their ups and downs, but Shikamaru being the more sensitive of the two comes out the winner in the end. That’s not to say I wouldn’t work with Senkuu to truly become the power couple we both secretly crave, but I know my emotions can get away from me at times and it seems to me that Shikamaru would be a smidge more understanding in that department. 

I realize this definitely isn’t the answer you were expecting, anon, and I absolutely considered scrapping this whole post more than once. lol But I didn’t want to shrug off the question just because I couldn’t decide which of them I liked more. Anyway, for the sake of posterity, here’s what the zodiac has to say about me for comparison. 

August 7th - Leo

Strengths: Energetic, creative, passionate, generous, warm-hearted, cheerful, humorous

Weaknesses: Hasty, arrogant, stubborn, self-centered, lazy, inflexible

“Love is the focus point of these individuals, and while their intellectual and instinctive sides are the first ones to show, we will see that they seek someone equal, to share their inner states with. They need a lot of support and a calm partner that soothes their Soul, someone quiet enough and intimate enough to feel safe with. Easy to detach from reality and our planet Earth, their relationships either speak of the unseen and the impossible or present a safe haven where their bodies can rest, and their routine can be brought to balance.”

“Open for new things and often ready to openly show their sexuality, they need a fine touch of love they are worthy of in this lifetime. Romance can be obstructed by their need to prove a point or become the image of something they admire, but as they get closer to their inner truth and become aware of their talents and potentials, they invite the right partner to be within a strangely peaceful union. Although they sometimes stand opposed to marriage and structures and forms that put any relationship in a drawer, they will gladly commit to the right person by their side, in all those surprising and unusual ways.”

“This Fire sign is passionate and sincere and its representatives show their feelings with ease and clarity. When in love, they are fun, loyal, respectful and very generous towards their loved one. They will take the role of a leader in any relationship, and strongly rely on their need for independence and initiative. This can be tiring for their partner at times, especially if they start imposing their will and organizing things that aren't theirs to organize in the first place. Each Leo needs a partner who is self-aware, reasonable and on the same intellectual level as them. Their partner also has to feel free to express and fight for themselves, or too much light from their Leo's Sun might burn their own personality down.”

“Sex life of each Leo is an adventure, fun and very energetic. This is someone who has a clear understanding of boundaries between sex and love, but might fail to see how important intimacy and emotional connection is to the quality of their sex life. Every Leo needs a partner to fight through their awareness and reach their sensitive, subconscious core, in order to find true satisfaction in a meaningful relationship.”

(Spoiler alert: this is all true, except the part about taking on the role of leader in relationships. I genuinely love being dominated in bed, but only if I deem my partner worthy or adequate enough to get the job done. Other than that though, I can’t say any part of this is horribly incorrect. Oops. : / )

[letterboxd]

Sommar Loving: The Ari Aster Q&A.

“The best filmmaking is mischief-making.” —Midsommar director Ari Aster confesses to being a nervous wreck while answering Letterboxd members’ questions about pagan rituals, grotesque imagery and psychedelic drugs.

It’s crazy to think that only two years ago, Ari Aster was just another New York filmmaker with a few shorts under his belt. But by this time last year, his debut feature, the Toni Collette-starring Hereditary, had taken out the title of most popular film on Letterboxd for the month of June, and ended the year as our Highest Rated Horror for 2018.

Not that he had a moment to enjoy it. Last August, while Hereditary was still in cinemas, Aster was already in Hungary (standing in for Sweden) filming his new horror, Midsommar, with Florence Pugh in the lead role. It was an assignment from a Swedish production company that he almost refused, until he saw it as an opportunity to process the break-up he was going through at the time.

In an insanely tight turnaround, Midsommar is out less than a year since it was shot, and feedback for the film on Letterboxd is largely positive. Midsommar “manages to be the perfect rom-com and the most mesmerizing horror film of the year,” according to Owen, and the film proves to SilentDawn that “Aster is a capable craftsman and an auteur with many dastardly thoughts on his mind”. Laura declares: “Nobody makes me feel as icky, awful, and downright dreadful as Ari Aster, and for that, I’m very, very grateful.”

It’s safe to say that Aster is a Letterboxd MVP, so we thought it only fair to invite you to submit your questions for our interview with him. Ever the optimists, you pitched us well over a hundred, so Jack Moulton got the tough job: whittling, coalescing and combining your thoughts, tucking them in among a few of our own, and putting them to a guy who has “more fun talking about other movies than talking about my own”.

One thing we didn’t ask? The most popular question of all: “Ari, are you okay?” The better question, after watching his films, is: are we okay?

Isabelle Grill (center) and some Swedish friends. / Photo: Csaba Aknay

You wrote both Hereditary and Midsommar while you were in a personal crisis, and you consider that writing was your remedy. Do you think you can make great art—to explore the depths of existential questions—when you’re more comfortable and content? Or is suffering the root of your success? Ari Aster: I’m sure I can. I’ve written a lot of films when I’ve been more comfortable and content. The two short films that I made first were written in that place. I’m a filmmaker who likes conflict, which is not unique to me of course, but I do have a dark side and I go there in my writing.

I’m also someone who believes the best filmmaking is mischief-making and I’m always trying to come from a place of mischief as a writer. But, whether I’m going through a crisis or writing in a more or less relaxed state, I’m also a very neurotic guy. Even when there’s relative peace in my life, I’m kind of a nervous wreck.

That’s relatable. Grief is a catalyst for both films, and both Toni Collette and Florence Pugh’s big scenes of anguish are really the most horrifying parts of the films, because they’re so raw. AlecDouglas asks: what is your approach to directing actors’ performances? More specifically, can you talk about how you prepared each actress for these gut-wrenching moments. A lot of that was laid out in the script as clearly as I could. Beyond the script, it was just a matter of talking through the material with them and explaining what I felt was needed. Luckily both actresses are extraordinary artists who knew exactly what was necessary and were fully committed. They gave themselves to the material in a very generous way and were prepared to dive in headlong.

Florence Pugh (center) has a good cry in another memorable scene from ‘Midsommar’.

Chris Flores, Timur Dzhambinov and Kahlen all asked about your obsession with mutilated heads and/or skull trauma. I grew up loving horror films and subjected myself to a lot of grotesque imagery. I’ve always had a feeling for the macabre. There are a lot of images that traumatized me and I’m sure that they lingered in my mind in a way that conditioned me to pursue images like that and come up with them myself. In all of my stories, the imagery comes after the ideas and characters, so it tends to fall in line with the story. In some cases it does come first, but it’s very hard to trace any of that to any origin.

Several people, including Mark and MrJoshua, would like to know how many of the pagan rituals and artwork in Midsommar are legitimate, and how many were invented by you. Most of the rituals are references in one way or another to actual traditions and laid out in pre-existing folklore, but I did take a lot of liberties from there. So there are certain things in the film that are pure invention and there’s certain things that are absolutely pulled from reality. The pubic hair in the food and the menstrual blood in the drink, for instance, is tied to my actual research.

Gunnel Fred. / Photo: Gabor Kotschy

Scott Stamper, Sam Sellers-King and Ash were interested in your obsession with cults, or, as Deryn asks: “Ari Aster what the fuc— okay, what is it with you and pagan cult-themed horror movies?” I don’t know if I have an obsession. It just so happens that the first two movies that I got made featured cults. They’re also both films that are very much about family and are asking questions about the families you’re born into, surrogate families, and the families you find. So for both films it made sense. A cult is a very useful metaphor when you’re digging into material.

Another common question: how much “research”—personal or professional—did you do into psychedelic drugs? When it comes to the psychedelic stuff, I didn’t really do research. I had taken psychedelics about ten years ago and I had some very bad trips when I was in college.

That counts as research. Inadvertently, yeah.

Laura Valentina asks: which films inspired the look and feel of Midsommar? Can we ask you to also talk about cinematography influences? For the tripping scenes, we weren’t looking at any influences. We didn’t want to do the 1960s and 1970s psychedelia that you might see in Easy Rider, Midnight Cowboy, or the films by Kenneth Anger. I love all those films and really enjoy them, but they’re dated due to that. If anything we just knew what we wanted to avoid.

For the cinematography in general, we were pursuing a three-strip Technicolor look. We were talking a lot about the color films of Powell and Pressburger and looking at older movies when we were color-correcting the film. When I was finishing Hereditary, I was working on a shot-list [for Midsommar], but it was a more accelerated process because of our extremely punishing and tight prep schedule. On Hereditary we did a lot of screenings for the crew of given movies that I thought would get people in the right mood, but we weren’t able to do that on this film.

You’ve mentioned this was a gruelling shoot on a tight timeframe, but Mariela and NineTailedFox would like to know what the most satisfying part of the production of Midsommar was for you? It’s always satisfying when you have a good scene in the can and when you’re able to achieve certain things. Everyday there’s satisfying moments but it’s also loaded with little disappointments. You’re just always praying for something that will help move the shoot along and keep people’s spirits high. There were a lot of scenes that we were happy with so that’s always something to be grateful about.

Jack Reynor, Ari Aster and Florence Pugh. / Photo: Merie Weismiller Wallace

Many in the Letterboxd community are raving about Midsommar’s stellar cast. Half the character work is achieved in those selections. Can you talk about where you first saw your actors and how you knew they were right for the roles? For a lot of the parts we had people tape and send in auditions, so it’s really a matter of instinct and feeling these people fit. In the case of Florence Pugh, Jack Reynor and Will Poulter, they were people who were at the top of our lists early on who we persisted on that they were right. It was a real joy to work with all of them. William Jackson Harper, too.

Florence Pugh can really do anything. She’s an incredible actress who’s wonderfully endowed with amazing talent. Will Poulter is a total professional and a brilliant actor. Vilhelm Blomgren was somebody we pulled on pretty late in the process and it was very exciting to find him and know we had our Pelle.

Bran asks: how different did Hereditary and Midsommar end up being from your initial ideas for them? They changed in the sense that what we ended up shooting were a lot longer than we could keep them, so the movies were cut down a lot. I feel both films are pretty close to what I was imagining. Midsommar was more ambitious and so there were more compromises, which is just what happens. You’re chasing this thing and you get as close as you can to your vision.

So then, given that Midsommar was significantly cut down, we’ll jump to Joshua Booker’s question: what was the hardest stuff to cut? There’s more rituals and we get to meet more people in the community to get a more nuanced view of them. There are more scenes between Dani and Christian so that their journey to that ending is a little bit more circuitous. There’s more of the thesis competition between Christian and Josh too, that originally had more body to it.

Right out of the gate your vision as a filmmaker feels fully formed. You’ve said that you intend to explore different genres. Do you want to continue working with cinematographer Pawel Pogorzelski, and do you plan on exploring different styles? I’m always interested in developing different styles but the style needs to fit the film. I’ve been working with Pawel for a long time—he’s one of my best friends and we understand how the other person works. We have a very satisfying shorthand and our own processes, which is great. I definitely plan on keeping on going with him.

Ari Aster with cinematographer Pawel Pogorzelski. / Photo: Gabor Kotschy

Everybody wants to know whether you’ve ever written a script, or a scene, or a short, and then thought “I’ve gone too far”? I admit have a problem with brevity. That’s maybe where I wonder if I’ve been a bit too indulgent, but not if I’ve gone too far with the taboos.

MaxT26 asks: do you think it’s important for modern horror films to push the boundaries in terms of being disturbing and creative? Related: Tobias Soar wonders what recent horror movies you’ve admired. There’s a tradition in horror of confronting taboos and twisting the knife, so to speak. The Wailing is a film I absolutely loved and already has a place among my favorite horror movies. I would describe that as a masterpiece.

I’m excited by South Korean filmmakers in general, by the way they approach storytelling and juggling of tones. Their films defy categorization while also tempting it. Later this year, we’re all going to get The Lighthouse. I wouldn’t necessarily categorize that as a horror film but I’m excited for people to see it. I’m a big fan of Robert Eggers. I saw an early cut of it and it’s great.

The final question/answer contain spoilers for both films. Read on at your peril.

You’ve mentioned building the script for Hereditary around the image of both Charlie and Annie’s deaths and the way they mirror each other. What image was your starting point for Midsommar? Some of the final images were certainly the things that came to me first. In particular, it was the image of the wide-shot with Dani and the house burning behind her. The prologue of the film came to me pretty early on too.

‘Midsommar’ is in US and UK theaters now, and coming to other festivals and markets soon. All photographs courtesy of A24. Our thanks to Ari for his time and to everyone who asked a question. Still not sated? Enjoy this Letterboxd list of Ari Aster’s favorite contemporary directors.