#just goes to show you how this view varies between cultures

[aishabellasbigblogofeverything]

Agreed. I’ve always loved broccoli as a kid and still do today! It’s my all-time favorite vegetable and one of the few that I actu—wait what the fuck is that last sentence? 😧

[whinlatter]

Hi! I wanted to ask you what's your take on clothes and how wizards dress? I've been thinking about this since the 'gettin ready fot the party' scene. What's a typical wardrobe for typical wizard in te 90's? I always imagined that they just dress like muggles (or maybe the younger generations?), and i when i read the books i always had a hard time imagining them when they are trying to pass as muggles, you know? Like what, they don't understans which clothes are for a specific event? Because Harry says that he could tell thay dress a bit diffrent, like out of place. I mean, it's probably just meant to be funny, but, how isolated are they to not knowwhat muggles wear? I guess it also has to do with how they are raised, i imagine blood-supremacists (is that how it's called?) use only 'robes' (whatever that is, and, also, what's under those robes? like, a thong? do they wear muggle underwear? SO MANY QUESTIONS)

So, i was thinking about this instead of working🤠.

I liiive for that part with tonks' clothes, i even got a litlle "oh i wanna be thereeee and try everything and make everything fit with magic!"

And this how i imagine wizards dress (according to jkr) in the muggle world

ok please know that this image made me howl

thank you for the super interesting question! i have thought a bit about typical wizarding wardrobes and familiarity with muggle fashion among wizards in the 90s as a worldbuilding question in beasts. it's definitely true that wizarding familiarity with muggle dress is another one of those worldbuilding points in canon where the text is unclear and at times inconsistent. i know people have different views on how much wizarding and muggle culture interact, especially in matters of popular culture and fashion. i've heard very convincing arguments that the cultural insularity and physical remove of the wizarding community from muggles would mean most children raised in wizarding households, especially pureblood families like the weasleys, wouldn't know that much about how muggles plausibly dress, what they listen to, or what forms of media are popular (books, music, sports, even less so tv and film).

while i do agree with some aspects of this, in my approach to wizarding youth culture in the 90s, i think young witches and wizards on the left know more about muggle fashion than they do about many other aspects of muggle culture, and that interest and ability to pull off muggle fashion depends on a person's background, politics, gender (because mostly, it does all seem to be about trousers - i reckon pureblood supremacists, as you say, are in their undies most of the time), but especially generation and the politics/patterns of consumption in the time period when they were a teenager. i think your desire and ability to wear muggle clothing varies a lot if you're born in 1950 vs 1980, partly because of changing wizarding politics and the difference between growing up in peacetime vs a world at war, but partly because muggle fashion changes as a market in the second half of the twentieth century.

basically, i think these young progressive millennial wizards would wear more muggle clothing because of changes in muggle fashions/consumption that allow for greater availability and access to muggle clothing by the 1990s, as well as access to information about fashion and trends, and i think they would want to because willingness to embrace muggle fashions would be a way of showing their commitment to their own politics and forms of teenage rebellion that were distinct from those practiced by generations prior living through the first wizarding war. a longer discussion with my reasoning for this is below the cut!

so - in general, in canon, gen X wizards and older (so the youngest of them born in the 1950s thru 70s, and everyone older than that) seem to dress in muggle clothing really only as a protective measure to prevent exposure/risk breaking the statute of secrecy. when bob ogden goes to the gaunts' house in the 1920s, even as the head of a major ministry department dealing with law enforcement, he does a terrible job dressing as a muggle (the bathing suit, pls bob, i beg). if you look at all the wizards trying to dress as muggles for the world cup, it's clear that the adoption of muggle clothing, for most wizards, is a strategic, defensive move more than anything else. in PoS, mcgonagall - herself a progressive woman in her politics - disdains wizards who are celebrating the end of the first wizarding war by celebrating in the street "not even wearing muggle clothes", which she thinks is reckless and risks wizards' exposure (love when mcgonagall dresses like a muggle briefly at grimmauld place in OotP and it freaks harry out lol). there is no enthusiasm or interest in it - there's just conformity for self-preservation.

for that reason, i think you can see why those on the wizarding right in the mid-twentieth century, especially those drawn to pureblood and wizarding supremacy, would come to see dressing like a muggle as a disgrace, a sign of submission to a lesser people, in a way that would become extremely loaded in the years preceding and during the first wizarding war (1970-1981). when harry sees snape in the flashback to his first trip on the hogwarts express in the early 70s, he notices snape is already wearing his wizard robes very early on in the journey, which harry's narration supposes is because snape's happy to be out of his 'dreadful Muggle clothes' (DH). those muggle clothes were a sign both of snape's poverty but also his outsider status in muggle tinworth: special, because he's a wizard, but otherwise socially inferior to other children in every other way. snape, of course, is raised in a wizarding household with knowledge of magic but has been wearing muggle clothing to avoid detection for his entire childhood, in ways that imbue the wearing of wizarding clothes and casting off of muggle garms with great political significance. in canon, we see that the vast majority of wizards, while not death eaters or rabid pureblood supremacists, tend to be small c conservatives in their view of wizarding cultural norms and tend to think they're better than muggles even if they don't necessarily want to go out and kill them all. for that reason, they remain loyal to wizarding traditions, and continue to wear robes, partly as a symbol of their proud cultural identity as wizards, in ways that they would likely only cling to as their society moves towards open war over muggle-wizard relations (as you say, robes seem to be worn without trousers underneath, so most wizards are just wearing underwear under their robes and going about their day. slay, honestly).

so, if the right hate muggle clothes, then the willingness of gen z+ wizards to engage with and adopt aspects of muggle attire and culture might map onto a progressive political outlook and a disavowal of wizards-first ideology. but a person's politics alone doesn't mean they know how to pull off muggle clothing, and in the years of brewing tension then open war, most wouldn't bother risking their lives to be caught wearing a pair of bell bottoms. arthur weasley is the best example of this. arthur is theoretically interested in muggle clothes because he's a progressive man who disavows wizard supremacy and believes in principles of tolerance towards muggles. now, he's not good at knowing how to pair a plausible muggle outfits. this is because he still lives at a reasonable remove from wizards, he's extremely busy with a demanding job and seven children to be staying up to date with changing fashions, and at the end of the day still spends most of his week among wizards in a civil service that demands a certain level of professional conformity. but i think it's also because arthur weasley is born in 1950 and therefore spent his young adulthood trying to raise a young family during a war. arthur instead channels his politics into support for muggle protection legislation rather than in wearing muggle clothing, which he might see as a limited individual act of symbolic resistance that would put his family at risk and also cost time and money he doesn't have. (if we look at the marauders, as an example of a progressive bunch in the interim generation between arthur and arthur's children, especially someone like sirius with greater financial freedom, it's very telling that sirius shows his politics off through riding a cool muggle motorbike and sticking up muggle soft porn on his bedroom walls, but not noticeably through fashion, as far as harry's photographs show).

but if you look at arthur's children, progressive wizarding millennials, it seems like more confident familiarity with muggle fashions and culture is generally more common. i think we can include someone like tonks in this, raised in a mixed marriage household by a blood traitor and a muggleborn dad. harry says that the weasley children are better than their parents at dressing like muggles. when harry sees bill weasley he doesn't think 'this is a man who looks like he's done a bad job dressing for a muggle rock concert' he thinks 'this is a man who looks like he could be going to a rock concert'. this suggests to me a difference, say, between bill and his dad. arthur likes muggles and believes engaging with muggle culture is important, but doesn't really succeed at it, but his eldest son manages to marry both a political commitment to embracing muggle culture with an ability to dress plausibly as a muggle so much so that he's able to ape a subculture in a way his dad doesn't really try to often and has never succeeded at.

why? i think there's a few things going on. one is that the majority wizarding millennials grew up in peacetime, after the fall of voldemort, in the 1980s and 90s, where wearing muggle clothing was less likely to get you killed and more likely to symbolise an individual act of rebellion against more low-level societal norms and cultural pressures rather than against a murderer in a mask. this, plus having the time and disposable income to follow muggle fashions more closely, as well as the opportunity to access about muggle fashions and celebrity styles, has a big part to play. bill weasley has more time and ability than his dad to stay up to date about muggle clothing tastes, as do his siblings. characters who went to hogwarts in the 80s and 90s also did so at the peak of a mass print consumer culture (one that was already on an upward ascent since the 60s) that was designed to be be accessible, inexpensive and create an appetite for following trends among consumers, and that could very easily be of appeal to progressive young witches and wizards. this is why in beasts i have ginny know about the spice girls and their iconic lewks from a copy of smash hits magazine because that seemed like the kind of inexpensive and highly portable source of information about muggle culture that a muggleborn or halfblood student (or even a pureblooded student with a parent with a progressive interest in muggle clothing) would be able to take to school and pass around a dormitory. on the gender point, too - donning muggle clothes, especially the more permissive and sexy clothing of the 80s and 90s would be a great way for a rebellious young woman raised in a wizarding household - eg. tonks or ginny - to stick it to the conservative gender norms in the wizarding world.

moreover, the changes in fashion as a market in the muggle world would make a certain base style of comfortable and inexpensive muggle dress much more readily available to younger witches and wizards than ever before. for kids born in the late 70s/80s, changes in muggle clothes consumption - aka. the globalisation of mass factory production of textiles, especially garments, and the early forms of fast fashion we now recognise today - would also have an impact on the ready availability of certain basic forms of cheap muggle fashion, including the ubiquity of cheap jeans and trainers/sneakers, that emphasise comfort and ease of daily wear at a low cost point produced in such high volumes such that if you wanted a pair of jeans, you could easily get your hands on one. this would have made a plausible muggle clothing a lot more accessible (there's only so wrong you can go if you're just wearing jeans, t-shirt, a jumper, and a pair of trainers, really), and explain why the clothes harry wears in the muggle world don't seem all that different from the clothes he wears in the wizarding world (admittedly usually under his robes), or indeed that different from what ron seems to wear most of the time. passing as a muggle in 1920 with little effort - à la bob ogden - would be a lot harder than doing so in 1990.

so - yeah. that's my take! i think it's mostly about generation, but also about politics, about war and peace, a bit about gender and a lot about capitalism. i hope this helps!

[knarme-art]

Talioang'ri villagers have stereotypes about stuff...

(Just wrote a little thing about common things Kxayltirey na'vi from the Talioang'ri village in the outskirts of the tribe's lands might say or believe about other parts of Kxayl society. Their perceptions vary based on how they view the Centre Plateau cultural hegemony, their age, how much contact they've had with people outside of their own village etc.)

Think of your own country or region!

Different regions will have their own situations going on, and their own stereotypes about each other. Many stereotypes are just over-generalizations over a few people someone met or just legends / rumours etc. but are common things people may joke about. In Finland two halves of my heritage, Savonians and Ostrobothnians, got their own stereotypes too and I figured I wanted to emulate that.

Savonians are known as talkative but having very riddles-packed, implicit and indirect way to word things. We are called twisted corckscrew people whose expression has so many layers of irony and playing shit for a joke in it that our real feelings are veeery hard to find out. ;)

Ostrobothnians are known for being.... Braggy about our achievements and liking to show off, and for being prone to knife fights lol. Also for being very spiritual and tbh there are two kinds of spirituality to us, some stuff that seems more like recycled animistic faith recycled through Christianity and that'll make you very compassionate to living beings, OR horrific bigoted authoritarian Christianity I see people get major religious trauma from... (I was lucky that this wasn't the case with my family, - but it was my Ostrobothnian mother that influenced my spirituality in a way that was non-judgemental and compassionate.)

See how interesting little detail like this is in real life? I want to feel deeply how my Kxayltirey people would feel about themselves and each other, what a chat with some drinks with a Plateau direhorseman would be like, what discussing society with him might be like... How I'd see his life approach and little gestures etc. of the unspoken. How he goes about his daily life, why I might love him and his family a lot. etc.

So I love to dig deep into this kinda part, drawing from real life social dynamics and experiences.

For my fanclan, I think it's fun to explore the variety of perspectives my characters will have themselves, and hear from others around them depending on who you're asking.

A Central Plateau direhorseman, Outskirts Direhorseman, Outskirts-dweller moving into the Txe'lan'mo city of the centre plateau, a family from the outskirts insecure about their status in Txe'lan'mo, remaining Ikran people of the distant mountain villages, Talioang'ri villagers with their mixed cultural heritage between Gorge Foresters and Plateau people (Kxasi), elderly Talioang'ri villagers, Talioang'ri youth, higher class Txe'lan'mo citizen, the Tsahik's close cultish follower groups, the traveling Trader Class....

...All formerly mentioned are possible Kxayltirey people you might meet while visiting their area.

All of them will have very varied perspectives and understandings of who themselves and other people are.

Talioang'ri is a village in the partially forested Lower Plateau, where Kxasi is from. Their cultural heritage is very visibly an admixture of Gorge Forester and Plateau cultures, making them kinda oddballs deep into the upper plateau villages.

Here are some stereotypes they often have about other regions or themselves...

- Gorge Foresters - unknown and taboo, confusion about who exactly are they anyways. Old spoken knowledge says many Talioang'ri have Gorge Forest ancestry. Some believe it, some think it's a joke. The hairstyles originating from Gorge Forest culture among Talioang'ri villagers are considered either beloved heritage or out-of-fashion and "not stylish" depending on who's talking. Many youth in Talioang'ri choose Plateau style hairstyles instead, especially when moving there. Long dreads from the whole head type of styles are most common in older folk, and young folk keeping them are considered either eccentric, rebellious or old-fashioned depending on who you ask.

On the Plateau Talioang'ri mixed ancestry is considered simply common knowledge, but many Talioang'ri folk deny it out of shame since they too want to feel like proud Kxayl and not be associated with negative Gorge Forester stereotypes. So Talioang'ri folk moving to the Plateau often get backhanded remarks about "having to unlearn those Gorge Forest ways" or have stereotypes assumed about them, like being "simple" or prone to fighting, which is quite humiliating to deal with.

- Talioang'ri villagers may either admire or resent Plateau folk. Many consider the direhorseman and craftsman classes of the Plateau their comrades, and often join their culture themselves. More prejudiced villagers, especially older folk, resent all Plateau folk for being "hegemonious" culturally (everyone wants to be them now) and how the Plateau ruling class drains the ecosystems of the Outskirts regions (including Talioang'ri)  and pushes Outskirts youth to move to the Centre, leaving many small villages dying out. Many Talioang'ri youth feel that their region is a dying backwater, and just want to go to the centre where most resources from the whole Kxayl region are taken...

- Some Talioang'ri villagers don't understand what's the difference between regular plateau folk and their ruling classes, or assume they're all basically one type of way. Some villagers who have visited the Txe'lan'mo city say that there is an obvious class difference going on in there and that the ruling class folk are oddly condescending and stuck-up, but the regular people are quite good comrades when you work with them and get to know them. Some of them will be prejudiced and insecure, though, and feel the need to put others down for being "new in the city".

- Many in Talioang'ri have never heard of the Ikran culture of the Floating Mountains, due to the systemic erasure of that identity by the plateau ruling class, and because the persevering ikra'vi villages are very far, far up and away from the centre hubs of Kxayl society.  Some older folk know about them and talk about them sometimes, but almost no one is interested or curious about that. Most Kxayl anywhere simply don't get educated on this topic ever because it's somewhat hidden information.

- Talioang'ri view of themselves, when positive, takes great pride in their innovations as crafters and hunters in the varied Lower Plateau terrain, where you find a mosaic of both forested and open plains biomes. Kxasi is an example of someone really proud of where he comes from. Some others just feel shame to be from "some dying backwater".

[omegaversebookshelf]

Stranger Things?

And the winner is...

Mike Wheeler!

Also sorry for the delay, Anon. Got hit with the Real Life Crazies (in a good way)

Mike is actually still undecided in my main verse, though I've narrowed it down to alpha or beta, though I've been leaning towards alpha because I think that lends a specific flavor to his clashes with Lucas in particular that works well with my overall plan.

I also think they both fit the general mold of "Mike's gender isn't really every something he's had to think about much or in depth," which in the context of my Stranger Things worldbuilding (that I talked about more on the post for Robin) leans a bit more beta actually.

You see my dilemma. XD

Mike is, at least at the beginning of the show, the leader of the party, as befits the DM. (Remember that the primary narrative structure of Stranger Things is D&D and that does have to be considered.) He tends to be the one to take charge and make decisions for the party as a whole, though whether or not the whole party agrees and goes along with it varies wildly.

In the context of the party as a pack, specifically a baby pack/puppy pack/First Pack/whatever terminology you go with, it does mean he is probably, as he gets older, a bit more aware of the emotional states of his packmates then in canon. It doesn't mean he knows any better what to do about said emotions (Pack Alpha or not he is still a teenager figuring his shit out with the rest of them) so the overall fallout is more or less still the same.

Alpha!Mike would mean that he also struggles a lot more in-between seasons 3 & 4 when the party is split up, especially with Will and El, his pack omega and girlfriend respectivly, outside his territory and away from him. He would have even more anxiety about it and, ironically, be more determined to hide that from both of them.

The Party as a whole has a slightly off-beat view of gender and gender roles, using the 80s repressed mindset as the norm, because of their immersion in the sci-fi and fantasy oriented sub-culture. (This does mean there are some grossly exaggerated misconceptions they do have, in opposition to the extreme minimization of a good portion of the distinct alpha/omega traits in particular. They'll figure it out eventually.)

It adds an extra layer of tension to Mike and Lucas' clashes, and also Mike and Max's. Little baby alpha's butting heads.

in the shipping context:

For El, who does not really understand gender as a concept and is still figuring all that out and how it relates to her, it honestly doesn't really effect them that much, except maybe reducing Mike's obliviousness just a smidge (though not doing anything about either of their awkwardness)

For Will, it would actually make that pairing a bit more socially acceptable. Not totally, but it would be less of a "likely to get hate-crimed" and more of a "people would dance around it in conversation and a lot of people would probably feminize Will because they are all about their manufactured dicotimies." So ultimeately it would come down to how Will felt about that last point probably.

(I don't put a whole lot of thought into shipping for The Party tbh. They're awkward baby teenagers figuring themselves out in-between trying not to die. I support them and hope to survive the continuing saga of second-hand embarassment.)

-

my askbox is open to having fandoms and/or characters yeeted at me

[poppopculture1]

Audience Power: How We Shape and Are Shaped by the Media We Love

“In general, I think audiences are a lot smarter than people think. So, it’s not “know your audience”, it’s “respect your audience, and really know your content”.” — Edward Tufte

In an age dominated by digital communication, understanding media audiences has become a crucial area of study for researchers and practitioners alike. Media audiences are not merely passive recipients of information; they actively engage with content, interpreting and responding to it in diverse ways. Various theories have emerged to explain how audiences interact with media, shaping our understanding of communication and cultural consumption. So it’s essential for people like you and I - people who worked in or interested in the field of Communication, to know and understand these theories. 

Let’s not delay any further and begin our lesson now!

One of the core theories is the Uses and Gratifications Theory. This idea is that people actively choose media based on their needs or interests. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many people turned to platforms like Netflix to escape or find comfort in familiar shows and movies. Meanwhile, they also relied on news outlets to stay updated on health guidelines and developments. Essentially, this theory highlights that understanding why people consume media is just as important as what they’re consuming.

Then, there’s Reception Theory, which focuses on how people interpret media based on their unique backgrounds and perspectives. Take the show ‘’Orange Is the New Black”, for instance. Some viewers might appreciate the show’s insights into the prison system, while others might focus more on the personal stories and relationships. These varied responses show that individual experiences and perspectives shape how we understand media content, underscoring the diversity within audiences.

Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding Model builds on this by looking at the dynamic between media creators and audiences. Hall suggests that while creators may encode specific meanings into content, audiences might decode or interpret these meanings differently. For example, some people might watch “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” as a fun glimpse into a glamorous lifestyle, while others might see it as promoting unrealistic beauty standards. This model reminds us that audiences actively make sense of media and can even push back against dominant cultural messages.

The Cultural Studies Approach goes a step further by considering the influence of social factors like class, race, gender, and ethnicity on audience interpretations. For instance, “Black Panther” was hugely celebrated for its representation of Black culture and empowerment. Many viewers, especially those who’ve felt underrepresented, connected deeply with the movie, showing just how powerful socio-cultural factors are in shaping audience reactions.

(Tv show "Orange is the new black", "Keeping up with the Kardashians"; Blockbuster "Black Panther")

With digital media’s rise, the idea of Participatory Theory has also gained traction. This theory highlights the shift from passive viewing to active participation. Platforms like TikTok and YouTube make it easy for people to create and share content, essentially making audiences part of the media-making process. TikTok’s viral dance challenges are a perfect example: they let users engage creatively, forming communities and driving trends from the ground up.

Finally, Globalization Theory explores how audiences are influenced by cultural flows on a global scale. People now consume media from all over the world, leading to a blend of cultural expressions. Look at K-Pop, for example. Groups like BTS have massive fan bases worldwide, transcending language and cultural differences. Their success shows how global influences can shape local cultures and even personal identities

(TikTok videos)

(International boy group BTS)

In short, studying media audiences is a constantly evolving field that uses various theories to unpack how people interact with media. From the choices audiences make to their diverse interpretations, these theories highlight just how complex modern media consumption has become. Examples like: Orange Is the New Black, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and Black Panther bring these theories to life, showing their real-world impact. As technology keeps reshaping our media landscape, understanding these dynamics will remain essential for anyone trying to connect with audiences today!

____

McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's mass communication theory (6th ed.). Sage Publications. (Accessed: 12 October 2024).

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–79 (pp. 128-138). Hutchinson. (Accessed: 12 October 2024).

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/268109 (Accessed: 12 October 2024).

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press. (Accessed: 12 October 2024).

[jeanjauthor]

A character’s “voice” depends on their upbringing,which includes financial status, social status, culture, and personal experiences.  It can seem overwhelming, but remember the movie & titular character, Shrek...?  They completely redid pretty much all of Mike Myer’s voice acting, because the original characterization just wasn’t working...until he tried a Scottish accent near the end, and boom!  They had him, at that point.  He came to life magnificently!

A character’s “voice”, their personalities, attitudes, and so forth, can be known from day 1, or day zomg the deadline is LOOMING!!  This you already know, of course.  What you want to know is HOW to get that voice to come out.

Short answer, it honestly varies.  But there’s a trick you can consider...

K.B. Spangler, the creator of the webcomic A Girl And Her Fed, didn’t know what the antagonist character Agent Clarice’s “voice” was until she decided randomly to assign the woman Cordon Bleu cooking skills.  Spangler knew she was a villainess, knew what evil things she had done, was doing, would be doing...but she didn’t “come to life” until the author gave her something not directly related to the plot.

Much, much later (and it’s been out for years now, so not much of a spoiler here), we see her using her Cordon Bleu skills while working as a housekeeper/chef for someone she’s covertly using for her own means, subtly manipulating them into doing the things she wants them to do.

In the movie The Truman Show, we know that Truman was taken to see Mount Rushmore (4 presidential heads carved into a massive cliff)...and his mother mentions how he “slept most of the way.”

We as the audience know it was because they had to sedate Truman to get him out of the studio and off to see Mount Rushmore in a manner that allowed them to close off the viewing site so that only the hidden cameras would notice, and random people wouldn’t go up to him to declare he was the central character in the worst-reality-tv-show-ever.  Truman doesn’t know this, however, so he just accepts his mother telling him he slept the whole way.

While it is never directly mentioned in the movie, we can be certain that after Truman begins to suspect his stuck-in-a-tv-show existence, he’s going to be rethinking everything about his life, including that trip to see Mount Rushmore.  And that realization is going to change how he viewed that national monument and the whole trip around it, and everything he’s been told about it.

In the light novels & the anime for the Japanese hit series Campfire Cooking In Another World With My Absurd Skill, we don’t get the impression that the main character is a foodie at the start of the story...but as each episode / chapter / light novel unfolds, we see more and more that he really is a foodie, and that he loves cooking a lot of different things.  He doesn’t consider himself a chef (and certainly isn’t Cordon Bleu trained, nor any Japanese equivalent), but it becomes quite evident as time goes on that he really does know his stuff.

The plot of the whole story is a non-combattant man gets summoned to another world and the only two major skills he winds up with are a infinite magical inventory, and the ability to access his favorite supermarket chain’s website, to be able to order the various foods and ingredients he used to enjoy back in Japan, simply by using the coins he earns in this new world...and it’s the savory aromas and flavors of those purchased otherworldly foods that earns him tamer contracts with super-powerful monsters in this world.  That’s a sort of hybrid between the two prior examples, where it doesn’t seem to be central to the story at first, but eventually becomes one of the key features.  (Caveat: If you’re a foodie and you read the light novels, you’ll start to drool and want to make some of those dishes yourself, don’t say I didn’t warn ya!)

So, what is the trick you can use?

Give your character a skill, interest, hobby, or experience that has “nothing” to do with the plot of the story.

Not every gun has to be a Chekhov’s Gun!  It it can become useful later (such as those fancy cooking skills), but doesn’t have to be used on-screen (such as rethinking that whole mentioned-only-in-passing Mount Rushmore trip).

For a lot of writers, it actually helps to throw some random interests, skills, and/or experiences at our characters, to see what sticks and feels “right” for them.  That in turn helps to develop their “voice,”  who they are and how they express themselves as a person.

Here’s another trick you can use:

Don’t just give them things they like!

Give your characters something they dislike, hate, loathe, despise, and/or can rant against, too.

It can be something absolutely silly.  Think of Samuel L. Jackson’s portray of the character Nick Fury in the Captain Marvel movie.  He can’t stand sandwiches that are cut on the diagonal.  That is such a random, oddball thing, that nobody would have predicted it.  (I remember feeling gobsmacked in the movie theater when that little tidbit was revealed, and rather pleased at both its cleverness and its mundanity.)

There’s a post that’s circulated on Tumblr a few times, and it’s a rant to authors that when you’re describing and characterizing a scientist in a story, don’t just give them mad fantastic science-y skills or things that they’ll wax poetic over for hours.. Give them something to protest about, too.

I always see advice about first drafts being okay to have rough sequences and character decisions, but one thing that keeps sticking me is it always feels like I need to have character voice figured out when I start writing. Do you have any advice to offer in developing character voice? Or at least, how not to worry so much about that when writing the first draft?

Hmm.

First of all (for those who may not be sure what this is about), let me add a link here to the Masterclass page on character voice, which is a useful basic resource.

Actually developing characters' voices is such an idiosyncratic process! So describing my approach to this may or may not be useful to you. But I'll give it a shot.

(Adding a cut here, because this runs long.)

When a character's about to first come on stage I spend some time just thinking about who they are: their upbringing, their life situation (pre-action and during-), their general emotional makeup... their pre-existing internal stresses, and how those are likely to interact with the ones I'm about to inflict on them. I take a look at where their particular position in their culture would normally place their speech and the way they're expected to think and act. Then I'll examine whether or not those expectations are ones they'd normally fall in with, or adopt unquestioningly... or secretly (or openly) dislike. As usual, drama is about conflict. A character who likes or loathes something about a situation, or about somebody else (or themselves), is going to find ways to routinely express that—not just in dialogue, but in affect, attitude, and reaction: all the aspects of voice.

I may make notes on these issues along the way if the choices I'm making for the character(s) are complex enough that I'm afraid I'll lose track of detail. But after that I've found it's usually best to just get on with it and start writing, as it's in producing the first draft that it seems to me the characters' voices develop best. It's like the difference between thinking about what you'd do if someone pulled a gun on you, and actually finding out in realtime what you'll do. The two situations are likely to differ profoundly; and not only other characters, but you, may be surprised by what you "see" and "hear".

That said— Sometimes as the first draft progresses, or when it's done, I'll go over a character's interactions with the plot and other characters and get a sense of something ringing just slightly hollow—of the character feeling less than fully present in their scenes: or of them (and their reactions) somehow just not being enough for the situations into which you've thrown them. Normally a realization like this suggests to me that there's something missing in my conception of them... and hence, something missing for them too: something that's not coming through properly in their voice, or not coming through at all.

If this happens, it can be a sign that either I got lazy in the character's design, or missed something larger that was going on, due to being too close to the situation they're in. So what I normally do at such a time is find a quiet few minutes to interview them.

...And let's be clear here that I'm not one of those writers who honestly believes (in the psychological, psychiatric, or developmental senses) that their character has some kind of existence outside their head.* My position is absolutely that every part of this process is make-believe, sourced in my own brain. And, yes, it's important to treat the whole creative process, and everyone/everything inhabiting it, with the dignity one normally accords to everyday reality in a physical universe. But sometimes—even to engage correctly with what we laughably call Real Life—some distance is required: space in which to stand back and see the forest in which the "tree" you're examining stands.

The interviewing state is one way you can get a little distance. You find an empty chair (in the room, in your head, doesn't matter) and sit your character down in it, and ask them what's going on. And you keep asking about it—sometimes in multiple sessions—until you get answers that ring true enough for you to grasp and solve their problem, and yours.

Nor do the questions have to be particularly event- or other-character-focused. Generalities may be more useful. I've had good results with two questions in particular: "What do you know about yourself that I don't know?", and "What do you not know about yourself that you need to?" Sometimes this will seriously open the floodgates... so, like good interviewers everywhere, it's smart to have a notepad handy. :)

I had this situation crop up with one of my oldest characters, who'd begun the series in which he appears as...well, frankly, kind of a dick. And yes, I knew this was going to shift as his character arc went where it was going (poor guy!). But at the same time, his voice in the second book of the series—then in its first draft—wasn't correctly reflecting either who he was, or why it was eventually going to be right for him to be going where he was going. He was too flip sometimes, too facile other times, too flat and matter-of-fact at other times still; and his rawness-around-the-edges was offputting. And I liked him! ...so the thought of what other people were likely to make of him, made me nervous.

This problem plainly had to be sorted out, pronto. So I paused work on that book for a day or three, and sat him down in the chair, and eventually got around to asking question two. And wow.... did that ever yield results! All I'd needed was the distance afforded by this technique to allow him to tell me what the problem was—and what I plainly already knew without being conscious of it—and what to do about it as I went forward (and backward, in revision). And I'm still mining the results.

...So you may like to try out that approach, if you run into problems, and see how it serves you. Hope you find it useful!

Meanwhile, as for how to worry less about where voice issues are going as you draft? ...It's been long enough since I had any similar concern that I'm not sure how to advise you. But it seems possible that, if you can cozy up enough to the concept that draft is where at least some people think the development of character voice belongs, over time you can overwrite the concern.

Anyway: hope all of this helps!

*After a book's out, of course, this situation shifts. Once other people get hold of your characters and start making them real, all bets are off. :)

ETA: if you found this useful, maybe you'd like to stop by Ebooks.Direct and take a look around to see if there's something you'd like to pick up? Please & thank you! :)

[anuspastor]

Headcanons about the Slags

bc i love em :))))) !!

The Slags use the echoes created through the caves to create music!

When making their (rare and exceptional) expeditions in daylight, the Slags use desert nomad type of head and body gear to protect their sensitive eyes and skin. They are usually fitted with a thick shawl, a tunic from multiple layers reaching all the way to the ground, heavy duty goggles, gloves and boots. The garments are usually made from the wool of their sheep and goats and are designed to be loose fitting as to let the free circulation of air and prevent sweat.

Guards wear protective armor over their tunics, which in itself is mostly tied back with threads or tucked into a thick pair of pants. There is no difference between the clothing used by women or men. Though, it is not unheard of for some men and women to use leftover threads to sew patterns into their clothing!

Expeditions are usually carried out in tight groups of four or five people as to not attract unwanted attention, and the group never goes farther than intended. Children are left in the care of old ghouls, who, due to their longevity and experience, know how to care for them and keep them away from any threat in the complicated maze of underground tunnels.

Same sex relations and relations between humans and ghouls are completely acceptable! Marriages and divorces are not uncommon, though viewed as sacred, because if the couple splits there is little space for them to go their separate space without consequences for the whole group.

Due to their significant lack of sight, texture is what makes a person attractive! Braids, scars, irregular teeth, different body shapes, clothing; as long as it's full of texture, you'd be the talk to every young lad, lass or other in the underground. Often young people would trade for old clothing patches or textured pins, which they will then attach to their jackets and shirts. Ghouls, for the above mentioned reasons, are deemed very attractive as their callused, exposed flesh, their bare bone, overlapping skin and various scars create a dynamic canvas deemed highly worthy of exploration by willing hands.

There are sadly unhealthy parts to this, however: young people starving themselves as to show their ribs and spine, filing their teeth to create ridges or outright hurting themselves in an effort for a few scars.

Slags are not all blind! Each generation is born with a slightly less sharp gaze than the next, leading them all closer and closer to definite blindness. Some members are blind, others just can't see more than a foot away, but the effects of generations underground varies. "What about agriculture?" You might ask. "The Slags are known to be skilled farmers, going as far as having food and meat left over to trade with neighboring settlements!"

And yes, while the large lack of vision among all members might affect their speed and effectiveness, blind farmers are not unheard of! Neither are farmers in history who have had no access to glasses. Take a look at this farmer from the 1940s and his genius system to tending to his farm: https://youtu.be/E6JPnZuicpI

As light is scarce, along with their peculiar way of life with a lack of vision, the Slags are often praised or ridiculed by outsider communities for... their outright bizarre assemble of colorful clothing which doesn't match a bit!

Although formed from a secret militia, the different families were not of the same background, resulting in a fascinating tapestry of cultural exchange. That, along with any ghoul who found their way from Gecko or the wastes and were accepted into their presence, has enriched the Slag's beliefs, daily habits and traditions and the way they raise each generation. Still, as the generations came and went, more and more did the womb of Mother Earth become the Slag's focus of belief and prayer.

And this is on that, and that is on this, and I truly, absolutely and without doubt am in love with this tiny group of underground critters and will further my exploration!

[spockandawe]

Well, this is interesting! So, in that post yesterday, there was one line that really baffled me, a thing about people brushing off a character as an asshole “because he shows literally zero growth.” I kind of set that aside because it was such a weird non-sequitur, and guessed that it was just someone’s sentences not quite keeping up with their train of thought, which has happened to me many times. Apparently I was wrong! I already spent long enough on that one post, I’m tired of talking about that, but this is new and interesting. 

Okay. I kind of wanted to see if I could talk about this purely in terms of abstracts and not characters, but I don’t think it’ll work. It would be frustrating to write and confusing to read. It’s about Jiang Cheng. Right up front: This isn’t about whether or not he’s an abuser. Frankly, I don’t think it’s relevant. This also isn’t about telling people they should like him. I don't care whether anyone else likes him or not. But I do like him, and I am always fascinated by dissecting the reasons that people disagree with me. And the process of Telling Stories is my oldest hyperfixation I remember, which will become relevant in a minute.

I thought I had a good grasp on this one, you know? Jiang Cheng makes it pretty obvious why people would dislike Jiang Cheng. But then the posts I keep stumbling over were making weird points, culminating in that “literally zero growth” line.

So! What happened is that someone wrote up a post about how Jiang Cheng’s character arc isn’t an arc, it’s stagnation. It’s a pretty interesting read, and I broadly agree with the larger point! The points where I would quibble are like... the idea that it’s absolute stagnation, as opposed to very subtle shifts that still make a material difference. But still, cool! The post was also offered up as a reason why OP was uninterested in writing any more Jiang Cheng meta, which I totally get. I’m not tired of him yet, but I definitely understand why someone who isn’t a fan of his would get tired about writing about a character with a very static arc. Okay!

Now, internet forensics are hard. I desperately wish I had more information about this evolution, because I find this stuff fascinating, but I have no good way to find things said in untagged posts, reblogs, or private/external venues. But as far as I can tell, that “literally zero growth” wasn’t just a slip of the tongue, it’s become fashionable for people to say that Jiang Cheng is an abusive asshole (that it’s fucked up to like) because he doesn’t have a character arc.

Asshole? Yes. Abusive? This post still isn’t about that. This is about it being fucked up to like this character because he did bad things and had a static character arc.

At first, that point of view was still deeply confusing to me. But I think I figured out the idea at the core of it, and now I’m only baffled. I’m not super interested in confirming this directly, because the people making the most noise about this have not inspired confidence in their ability to hold a civil conversation and I’m a socially anxious binch, but I think the idea is: ‘This character did Bad Things, and then did not improve himself.’

Which is alarmingly adjacent to that old favorite standard of ‘This piece of fiction is glorifying Bad Thing.’ I haven’t seen anyone accusing mxtx of something something jiang cheng, only the people who read/watched/heard the story and became invested in the Jiang Cheng character, but things kind of add up, you know?

Like I said, I don’t want to arbitrate anyone’s right to like/dislike Jiang Cheng. That’s such a fucking waste of time. But this is fascinating to me, because it’s like..... so obviously new and sudden, with such a clear originating point. I can’t speak to the Chinese fans, obviously, but exiledrebels started translating in... what, 2017? And only now, in 2021, do people start putting forth Jiang Cheng’s flat character arc as a “reason” that he’s bad? I’m not going to argue if he pings you in the abuse place, I’m not a dick. I’m not going to argue if you just dislike his vibes. I’m just over here on my blog and in the tag enjoying myself, feel free to detour around me. But oh my god, it’s so silly to try to tell other people that they shouldn’t like him because he has a static character arc.

I want to talk about stories. I don’t know how much I’ll be able to say, because it’s impossible to make broad, sweeping statements, because there are stories about change, there are stories about lack of change, there are all kinds of media that can be used to tell stories, and standards for how stories are told and what they emphasize vary across cultures and over time. But I think that what I can say is that telling a story requires... compromise. It requires streamlining. Trying to capture all the detail of life would slow down most stories to an unbearable degree. Consider organically telling someone ‘I made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich’ versus the computer science exercise of having students describe, step by step, how to make one (spread peanut butter? but you never said you opened the lid)

Hell, I’ve got an example in mdzs itself. The largely-faceless masses of the common people. If someone asks you to think about it critically like, yes, obviously these are people, living their own lives, with their own desires, sometimes suffering and dying in the wake of the novel plot. But does the story give weight to those deaths? Or does it just gloss by? Yes, it references their suffering occasionally, but it is not the focus, and it would slow the story unbearably to give equal weight to each dead person mentioned. 

Does Wei Wuxian’s massacre get given the same slow, careful consideration as Su She’s, or Jin Guangyao’s? No, because taking the time to weigh our protagonist with ‘well, this one was a mother, and her youngest son had just started walking, but now he’s going to grow up without remembering her face. that one only became an adult a few months ago, he still hasn’t been on many night-hunts yet, but he finds it so rewarding to protect the common people. oh, and this one had just gotten engaged, but don’t worry, his fiancee won’t mourn him, because she died here as well.’ And continuing on that way to some large number under 3000? No! Unless your goal is to make the reader feel bad for cheering for a morally grey hero, that would be a bad authorial decision! The book doesn’t ignore the issue, it comes up, Wei Wuxian gets called out about all the deaths he’s responsible for, but that’s not the same as them being given equal emotional weight to one (1) secondary character, and I don’t love this new thing where people are pretending that’s equivalent.

When Wei Wuxian brutally kills every person at the Wen supervisory office, are you like ‘holy shit... so many grieving families D:’ or are you somewhere between vindicated satisfaction and an ‘ooh, yikes’ wince? Odds are good you’re somewhere in the satisfaction/wince camp, because that’s what the story sets you up to feel, because the story has to emphasize its priorities (priorities vary, but ‘plot’ and ‘protagonist’ are common ones, especially for a casual novel read like this)

Now, characters. If you want to write a story with a sweeping, epic scale, or if you want to tightly constrain the number of people your story is about, I guess it’s possible to give everyone involved a meaningful character arc. Now.... is it always necessary? Is it always possible? Does it always make sense? No, of course not. If you want to do that, you have to devote real estate to it, and depending on the story you want to tell, it could very possibly be a distraction from your main point, like the idea of mxtx tenderly eulogizing every single character who dies even incidentally. Lan Qiren doesn’t get a loving examination of his feelings re: his nephews and wei wuxian and political turnover in the cultivation world because it’s not relevant, and also, because his position is pretty static until right near the end of the story. Lan Xichen is arguably one of the most static characters within the book, he seems like the same nice young between Gusu and the present, right up until... just before the end of the story.

You may see where I’m heading with this.

Like, just imagine trying to demand that every important character needs to go through a major life change before the end of your book or else it didn’t count. This just in, Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg go through multiple novels without experiencing radical shifts in who they are, stop liking them immediately. I do get that the idea is that Jiang Cheng was a ~bad person~ who didn’t change, but asdgfsd I thought we were over the handwringing over people being allowed to like ““bad”” fictional characters. The man isn’t even a canonical serial killer, he’s not my most problematic fave even within this novel.

And here is where it’s a little more relevant that I would quibble with that original post about Jiang Cheng’s arc. He’s consistently a mean girl, but he goes from stressed, sharp-edged teenager, to grief-stricken, almost-destroyed teen, to grim, cold young adult (and then detours into grim, cold, and grief-stricken until grief dulls with time). He does become an attentive uncle tho. He..... doesn’t experience a radical change in his sense of self, which... it’s...... not all that strange for an adult. And bam, then he DOES experience a radical change, but the needs of the plot dictate that it’s right near the end. And he’s not the focus of the story, baby, wangxian is. He has the last few lines of the story, which nicely communicate his changes to me, but also asdfafas we’re out of story. He was never the main character, it’s not surprising we don’t linger! The extras aren’t beholden to the needs of plot, but they’re also about whatever mxtx wanted to write, and I guess she didn’t feel like writing about Jiang Cheng ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But also. Taking a step backward. Stable characters can fill a perfectly logical place in a story. Like, look at Leia Organa. I’m not saying she has no arc, but I am saying that she’s a solid point of reference as Luke is becoming a jedi and Han is adjusting his perspective. I wouldn’t call her stagnant, the vibes are wrong, but she also isn’t miserable in her sadness swamp, the way Jiang Cheng is.

Or, hell, look at tgcf. The stagnant, frozen nature of the big bad is a central feature of the story. The bwx of now is the bwx of 800 years ago is the bwx of 1500+ years ago. This is not the place for a meta on how that was bad for those around him and for him himself, but I have Thoughts about how being defeated at the end is both a thing that hurts him and relieves him. Mei Nianqing is a sympathetic character who’s also pretty darn static. Does Ling Wen have a character arc, or do we just learn more about who she already is and what her priorities always were? I’m going to cut myself off here, but a character’s delta between the beginning of a story and the end of a story is a reasonable way to judge how interesting writing character meta is, and is a very silly metric to judge their worth, and even if I guessed at what the basic logic is, for this character, I am still baffled that it’s being put forth as a real talking point.

(also, has it jumped ship to any other characters yet? have people started applying it in other fandoms as well? please let me know if this is the case, I am wildly curious)

(no, but really, if anyone is arguing that bwx is gross specifically because he had centuries to self-reflect and didn’t fix himself, i am desperate to know)

And finally. The thing I thought was most self-evident. Did I post about this sometime recently? If a non-central character experiences a life-altering paradigm shift right near the end of the story (without it being lingered over, because non-central character), oh my god. As a fic writer? IT’S FREE REAL ESTATE. This is the most fertile possible ground. If I want to write post-canon canon-compliant material, adsgasfasd that’s where I’m going to be looking. Okay, yeah, the main couple is happy, that’s good. Who isn’t happy, and what can I do about that? Happy families are all alike, while every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, etc.

It’s not everyone’s favorite playground, but come on, these are not uncommon feelings. And frankly, it’s starting to feel a little disingenuous when people act like fan authors pick out the most blameless angel from the cast and lavish good things upon them. I’m not the only one who goes looking for a good dumpster fire and says I Live Here Now. If I write post-canon tgcf fic, it’s very likely to focus on beef and/or leaf. I have written more than one au focusing on tianlang-jun.

And, hilariously. If the problem with Jiang Cheng. Is that he is a toxic man fictional character who failed to grow on his own, and is either unsafe or unhealthy to be around. If the problem is that he did not experience a character arc. If these people would be totally fine with other people liking him, if he improved himself as a person. And then, if authors want to put in the (free! time-consuming!) work of writing that character development themselves. You would think that they would be lauded for putting the character through healthier sorts of personal growth than he experienced in canon. Instead, I am still here writing this because first, I was bothered by these authors being named as “freaks” who are obsessed with their ‘uwu precious tsundere baby’ with a “love language of violence,” and then I was graciously informed that people hate Jiang Cheng because he experiences no character growth.

[mercerislandbooks]

For the Love of the Rom-com

While I read across genres in the Young Adult section, I have a soft spot in my heart for the rom-com. Though this genre might come across as light and fluffy, in actuality the form is able to take on topics as varied as mental health, identity, immigration, racism, and grief, to name only a few. Sure there’s romance, escapism, and happy endings, but what kept me picking up one YA rom-com after another in the last month was the window into the lives of each protagonist. More than ever I’m seeing #ownvoices authors tell stories that reflect their particular experience with the characters that they hadn’t seen in novels as young people. In turn I get a glimpse into a life different than my own and subsequently widen my world view. Here’s a collection of some of my recent reads!

Counting Down With You by Tashie Bhuiyan

The debut novel from this Bangladeshi American author (and the first novel I’ve read by a Bangladeshi American) takes the fake dating trope and turns it into a thoughtful exploration of expectations across cultures. Karina Ahmed is a high school junior buckling under the weight of Bangladeshi parental expectations and coping with anxiety largely on her own. They want her to be a doctor. She secretly longs to be an English teacher. When her parents take a month-long trip back to Bangladesh, leaving Karina and her younger brother in the care of their grandmother, Karina is looking forward to a much needed break. But her quiet month is almost immediately disrupted when, through a series of circumstances, she is roped into pretending to be Ace Clyde’s girlfriend, Midland High School’s bad boy. As the two slowly get to know, appreciate, and, of course, fall for each other, they also encourage and call out each other’s strengths. Bhuiyan movingly portrays the complex experience of a Bangladeshi American female teen, trying to meet the expectations of her more traditional parents, navigate managing her anxiety, dealing with the double standard of her gender within her culture, and learning to stand in her own power.

Tokyo Ever After by Emiko Jean

Given this cover, I expected something totally different from what the pages held. The main character of this “lost princess found” novel is anything but sweet and demure, the impression I had from the cover. Japanese American Izumi (Izzy) Tanaka is living her best average life with her single mother in the small Northern California town of Mt. Shasta. When she finds out that her previously unknown father is actually the crown prince of Japan, her world turns upside down. Once this knowledge goes public, Izzy is whisked away to Japan to get to know her father and become acquainted with the rest of her family. Having always felt out of place as one of the few minorities in her town, Izzy is hopeful that she’ll finally find a place where she belongs. But life at court is more complicated than Izzy can imagine, and she finds that in Japan she’s too “American.” Izzy’s voice is suffused with humor, so even as she struggles to fit in, her inner monologue made me laugh out loud. A slow burn romance with a hot bodyguard, backstabbing cousins, and relentless paparazzi shenanigans only add to the delicious fun. There’s talk of a sequel in 2022!

Better Than The Movies by Lynn Painter

The premise of girl uses boy next door, with whom she (seemingly) shares a mutual dislike, to get to the boy she crushed on in childhood that has just moved back to town manages to squeeze in a slew of rom-com tropes with witty breeziness. Liz makes a deal with boy next door Wes that she will relinquish the parking spot they feud over daily if he will help her get a date to Prom with childhood crush Michael. Of course it ends up being more complicated than that. Liz is confident and comfortable in her own quirky skin, but is also still dealing with the grief of losing her mother, which seems to be hitting her more sharply as all the “lasts” of senior year are happening. Spending time with Wes in her efforts to get close to Michael, Liz realizes that maybe she doesn’t hate him as much as she thought she did. Movie lovers will appreciate that each chapter is headed by quotes from the rom-coms that Liz obsesses over. I appreciated the balance of snarky banter with an honest portrayal of the complicated relationship Liz has with her grief.

Love in English by Maria E. Andrew

I’d been meaning to read Love in English for months and finally picked it up. Ana and her mother have recently moved to New Jersey from Argentina to join her father, who’s been living in the United States for some time. In Argentina, Ana thought her English was pretty good, but finds that navigating high school in America is a daily struggle in understanding her classmates and teachers. Andrew uses blocks of ##### to show the parts of conversations Ana misses, drawing the reader into her confusion and frustration. Reading this novel, I was reminded of when my family hosted a Japanese exchange student in high school, and the hours she spent translating her homework from English to Japanese. Reading what it was like for Ana, I had a glimpse into what it might have been like for Miki, and it made me admire her, and all the people who come to the United States not knowing the language. I’m certainly not proficient in any other language than English. The short chapters are interspersed with Ana’s handwritten ESL journal entries, musings on the confusions of the English language and poems that play with varieties of word meanings. Ana is attracted to a cute boy in her math class, Harrison, but also bonds with fellow ESL student Neo, who is from Greece. While romance is a central thread in the story, what I found most compelling was the portrayal of what it’s like to live in a place where the ability to communicate and comprehend is limited. Ana’s perseverance and curiosity in the face of that challenge is inspiring.

The Quantum Weirdness of the Almost-Kiss by Amy Noelle Parks

Last but not least I decided to continue my theme of YA rom-coms in my current audiobook and cued up The Quantum Weirdness of the Almost-Kiss. Set at an elite boarding school for math and science prodigies, this is a dual POV narrative Evie and Caleb, best friends since childhood. Evie is one of the few females at their prestigious school, and excels in math and physics, but hasn’t shown any interest in the opposite sex until new guy Leo catches her eye - with his physics proof. When Evie decides romance might be worth exploring with Leo, Caleb has to figure out how to be supportive, despite the fact that he himself is also secretly in love with Evie. Alternating chapters between Caleb and Evie’s POV mean that we get to see what’s going on internally for both of them as Evie embarks on her first relationship with Leo, Evie and Caleb team up for a national physics competition, and the course of love takes twists and turns. While there is plenty of swoony romance, I also loved the way that Evie has grown to learn to live with her anxiety and how she sets the boundaries she needs to take care of herself while also pushing herself beyond her comfort zone. Parks does an excellent job of making the all the math and physics approachable for the layperson.

There are many more YA rom-coms to choose from in the Teen section, so stop by and see what catches your eye!

— Lori

[clockworths]

Sorry, this rb came out very long cause I was talking to my partner systems about this literally a few days ago.

Anyway~

We have a similar perspective and approach to how we view our circle in terms of how it interacts and displays to this external reality that my body is living in.

Literally, all of us who don't show up as the host and core of the collective (me) have the expectation that they will be treated nothing more than that of a fictional character. Weather that be because they are fictives or because external singlets think they are just OCs created by me.

To varying degrees, mostly everyone won't interact with external people if they're just going to be seen as some character and not a full-fledged person. Everyone has different ways of interacting with external people because of this.

Some people actually like the lack of perception by singlets because that gives them freedom to act the way they wish but behind the appearance and mask of another body. They can help me say the things that I would never have the courage to say myself.

While others are quite the opposite, and decide to stay back in their reality at all times and never directly front or view the reality I live in and they watch from afar. Which is the mass majority of us. This especially applies those who had bad experiences with this external reality and singlets living in it.

As a gateway system, our thought process goes: "Why bother interacting in a reality where you're much less likely to be perceived when you are very much perceived in reality you originated or came from?" It's why people stay in their respective home universes and rarely communicate via fronting because most of us can communicate by thoughts anyway.

---

That was just the first part of my reply. The 2nd part has to do with in-system actions that would be different from those same actions done in this external reality with non system members.

Not only does our opinion of this come from the fact that external people can't read our minds or access what's happening collective-wise but because as a gateway system we have people who come from realities that have vastly different cultures, morals and standards compared to the ones in this current reality.

A lot of the social stuff that's considered universally rude to Americans is actually considered common sense or the expectation of communication with the people in my circle.

There's an amalgamation of mannerisms and social culture from around the world in this reality that can be compared to how my people in circle socialize in their respective realities. I also wish that wasn't just treated like some other OU or AU (original universe or alternate universe).

With all that being said, we know the nuance behind how these cultures and moralities from our collective can or can't be applied to this specific reality. (If I delve into the specifcs of that we'd be here for days)

So, for the sake of simplicity. Let's say that there are dynamics and relationships that happen in our circle that would not be morally "correct" and/or very controversial to this external reality.

First off, the people involved in said relationships are not human. We have zero fully human people in our circle, and most of us who are actively in front identify as and have system roles that reflect the capabilities of deities, demigods, spirits and celestial beings.

Second off, we know very well that these dynamics and relationships can't be replicated with external humans. Don't even think we would try such things.

In cases of "incest" between collective members, "biological" relations between deities and Astral/Celestial creatures in our collective are in no way comparable to biological relations between physical humans. That's where all similarities stop.

In cases of our littles being in relationships with other collective members, our littles are not and will never be comparable to that of an external minor in this reality. Our littles are short and appear to be a specific age, and that's where all similarities stop. Even then, their age ID and appearance are subject to change (and they have).

They also have access to my adult brain and both those abilities gives us the indication that our littles are more than capable of making long term decisions and understanding complex subjects (which my littles have done btw and are happy to do it.) that a physical/external minor would not otherwise be able to.

And to top it all off, this is all just going on "in my head" to the perspective of a singlet. And no external person is being negatively affected by the dynamics happening in my circle.

You can't take a singular headmate to court or convict them of anything because we're seen as nothing but creatures of the imaginary to singlets. (It sucks but it's very true, and I'm kind of glad to have it that way cause I'd rather have people think I'm just some crazy guy for having imaginary friends over people assuming I'm this disgusting person who promotes or participates in illegal behavior. Even then, as a black queer disabled trans-man I'll be accused of such anyway with no proof of evidence what so ever.)

Anyway, this is also a long ramble from me. And tldr, singlets are going go see me and my body first before the people and universes in our circle, and we all work around how to go about that as a collective in this reality.

We're wondering if it would be more accurate (for us at least) to state "your inner world actions don't directly reflect your outer world ones" as well as the usual "fiction isn't a direct 1::1 with reality" and like, we have a few reasons for thinking this:

We're plural. So while some of our thoughts yes are indeed not reflective of our morality, morality can also look different between the inner world and the outer world.

Following point number one, we're not particularly pleased at the implications (that admittedly we could just be projecting? but the fact of the matter is we're still uncomfortable) that our sysian relationships are less real because they are only in our head, or that our exomemories, fragmented and scarce as they may be, wouldn't affect how we respond to thing.

"The internet" is still a place people interact even if the rules are a little different. So, same point as point number one just under a different situation.

TLDR we're just generally displeased with the valorization/glorification of "external world completely offline spaces" as more legitimate than everywhere else, regardless of intentionality.

We guess you could argue "well, it's not fiction then, is it?" but, you see, we very often feel as if we ARE the characters in question. And that there are several reality-versions of those characters that can coexist (similar to iterations in WOE.BEGONE but less uhh exploitation) and this is often how we reconcile doubles, fictionkin, etc. existing in this world and even in the same brain.

Proshippers DO realize this isn't even a new narrative, right?

So we're just extremely picky with our words. Not all soulbonders consider themselves plural but we are both if these and that's a specific marginalization that's just...not discussed we guess.

Either that or we're simply not in the right spaces/paying much attention, which could be a completely fair argument.

Anyways thank you for listening to our annoying vent lol.

OPs are still pro-shipping and believe anti-shippers are in the wrong. OPs are simply discussing personal feelings.

OPs are pro-endogenic, are a purely endogenic system themselves and believe anti-endogenics spew the same rhetoric as transmedicalists and the 1970's style refrigerator mother autism theory.

[beggingwolf]

MATE. GUARDING.

Okay!

If we want rookie feels—what about Geno showing up in Pittsburgh and suddenly he’s just everywhere Sid is—asking to hang out, going to Sid for help with English, barging his way into all of Sid’s routines. Sid’s baffled but flattered so he lets it happen. It’s not until Geno starts circling him on the ice, totally flying off the handle if someone so much as glances off him, and herding Sid into a corner or against the wall at bars, putting himself between Sid and the room, that Sid thinks maybe he should have listened when Gonch tried to talk to him about Russians and how they act towards someone they view as a prized asset they’d like to claim….

-guess who 😌

I will GNAW ON THIS POST IN DELIGHT.

The new guy, Malkin, he's a little quiet—understandable, really, given the language barrier, he really doesn't know much English at all, damn—but he's nice enough, and he's got incredibly soft hands and his hockey sense is blade-sharp.

And he watches.

He's got intense eyes. They keep catching Sid's attention. They keep catching on Sid. The locker room is slowly starting to feel more like home. Sid's worked hard, harder than he ever has, to be bigger and fitter and more ready for NHL hockey. His rookie season wore him thin, but now he's got it under his belt, and management is going to ask him to take the captaincy soon, he knows it. This will be Sid's locker room, and Sid knows how to set an example. He's young, he gets it, but he thinks he can do it. And Malkin's new and lots of guys are curious about Sid, sure...

But Malkin's... different. It's charged. He shows up once, then twice. It's hard to get him to go out, but sometimes if Sid goes out, then Malkin will show up—usually a little late, with a bashful smile, but he's squeeze into the booth with a grin and hold up a finger for a drink. He's hard to understand in loud restaurants. Sid's sure he probably can't catch most of the conversation yet, but he wants to belong, badly enough that he'll watch some of the party animals on the team get drunk and laugh at them.

And he'll just... get a bit close to Sid. Closer. He seems to pay more attention to Sid. He looks at everything with those intense eyes, taking it all in, and Sid's convinced Malkin is smart. He's quiet, but there's something going on behind those dark eyes that Sid often finds trained on him.

The first time Malkin touches Sid with intention, Sid thinks it's a mistake. Mating rituals vary culturally, he gets it. Hell, even in America they do things a bit differently than back home. He doesn't blink, he just keeps rolling with it, offering up a friendly smile. Malkin... Malkin wouldn't, eh? He's Sid's teammate, and moreover, they've barely managed more than a few rudimentary conversations in Malkin's—Geno's—roughshod English, often with Gonch in the middle of it all, or with Sid using his hands to try and map out a play.

Geno's always liked looking at Sid's hands.

So Sid rolls with it. Geno doesn't mean anything by it.

And, well, the next time it isn't so easy to ignore. A big hand with long fingers curling around his neck, holding him tight. Intimate. Shockingly so.

Geno pressing close, intention blazing in those eyes, his eyebrows raised as if to say, you want this, don't you? I want this. I want you. I'm brave enough to go after what I want.

...Sid thinks he does want it.

[historic-old-guard-lover]

What are your thoughts on the old guards and literacy ( past and present ) ?

I've reblogged some posts here (on why anything goes for literacy in medieval Europe), here (which touches upon oral history), here (a heartwarming take on reading aloud), and here (a humorous take), but I'd love to go in depth for you! As usual, the mega-post with pictures and more detailed explanations is below the cut-off.

TL;DR Summary of Literacy for Each Member:

Lykon: never needed to read or write, probably did neither

Andy: we see her read in the film, but might have only picked up reading in the last few centuries; doesn’t necessarily know how to write but would also be a fairly recent skill*

Quynh: may read or write, but similar to Andy would have been “recent” in the terms of her lifespan*

Yusuf: likely can read and write Arabic before his death, values literacy

Nicolo: total wild-card for either reading or writing, but we see him reading silently in the film so he has learned to read at some point; unclear whether he values it

Booker: very background-dependent for reading and writing, but values literacy as a social status symbol and clearly enjoys books from the film

Nile: can read and write and views it as an essential skill, but likely knows people who are illiterate and understands the socio-economics behind US literacy

*This is based on the fact that they never needed literacy to go about their lives, but they could have learned to read and write by the time that Yusuf and Nicolo die if they enjoyed it.

First off, what is literacy? If you ask someone or google it, chances are you’ll encounter the definition along the lines of “you can read and write.” This is a definition of literacy. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines it as “ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts.” To summarize academic arguments, “literacy” could mean anything from “is able to read a newspaper” to “understands internet meme language” to “understands the doctor’s write-up after a visit.” For this post, I’ll broadly address the ability to read and the ability to write in an character system since that is what I imagine you are asking.

You can’t have someone read something if you don’t have someone to write in a mutually-intelligible language, so let’s start with the history of writing. The invention of writing has been awarded to Sumerian Cuneiform in ~3,100 BCE in southern Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq and Iran near the Persian Gulf). It was done on clay tablets by trained scribes, primarily for boring things like business and government. Below is a picture of a tablet so you can see what cuneiform looked like. They eventually settled on writing left-to-right and didn’t have any punctuation (not even spaces between words!).

[ID: “Sumerian cuneiform tablet, probably from Erech (Uruk), Mesopotamia, c. 3100–2900 BCE; in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City” from here. The Met attributes it as “administrative account of barley distribution with cylinder seal impression of a male figure, hunting dogs, and boars.”]

Another notable old language is (Old) Egyptian. The first complete sentence dates back to 2690 BCE and was done using hieroglyphs (shown below). This language was used throughout Egypt and Nubia, which translates to modern-day Egypt and Sudan. The language didn’t really pick up, from what archaeologists can tell, until around 2600 BCE where writing starts proliferating...and then is soon replaced with Middle Egyptian. Fun fact: the word “hieroglyphs” comes from the Greeks, but the Egyptians referred to their script as (transliterated) “medu-netjer” or “the god's words” because it was a gift from Thoth (yes, that guy with the falcon head who may also be accredited as Thot).

[ID: picture of a seal impression from the tomb of Seth-Peribsen. It reads “The Ombite (i.e. Set) has given the Two Lands to his son, Dual King Peribsen.”]

Skipping over a few more writing systems developed in the Middle East and surrounding regions, we finally get to the first records of Old Chinese in 1250 BCE with the inscription on oracle bones shown below. From the get-go, there were at least three different scripts of Old Chinese: oracle bone, bronze, and seal. I’ve also added a bronze script so that you can see the differences.

[ID: ox scapula oracle bone from the reign of King Wu Din. The fragments read “ ...divined: in the next ten days there will be no disasters...  (day 40) Zheng divined: in the next ten days there will be no disasters. (day 41) ... cleaved to (day 42) ... fifth month, in Dun...  (day 50) Zheng divined: in the next ten days there will be no disasters. ...   (day 50) Zheng divined: in the next ten days there will be no disasters. Third day, (day 52) ... (day 54) ... The Gui will also have sickness ...” ]

[ID: Rubbing of an engraving found on multiple objects which notes the appointment of a man named Song as supervisor of the storehouses in Chengzhou.]

As you can see, early writing would not have interested the earliest members of the Old Guard. The things that were being written down were things that were important to those governing and those in business. I really don’t think that Lykon, Andy, or Quynh would have cared much about the barely distribution or who’s in charge of the storehouse, and they wouldn’t have been important enough to keep their own oracle on retainer. If we use the timeline I developed for my history of language asks (~8,000BCE - 7,000BCE Horn of Africa Lykon, ~5,000BCE - 4,000BCE Caucauses Andy, and ~3,500BCE - 2,500BCE Southeast Asia Quynh), then they all predate the invention of writing excluding the younger range of Quynh’s possible birth which places her after the invention but still culturally separated from it. Lykon could have died without ever having to learn how to read or write, Andy was old before it was invented let alone became popular, and Quynh is from a time where writing was not common. This is a hot take, but there is a non-zero chance that if Quynh disliked reading/writing and resisted learning it, she could have been locked in the coffin without being solidly literate. Imagine the first language you really have to read after 500 years now that literacy is a requisite for society is French, which doesn’t even sound how it looks (I’m looking at you, silent -ent at the end of most present-tense verbs). Painful.

This brings us to the next question we should answer for these older members: when would reading or writing have become useful and important to them? This is obviously much more difficult to answer. Because of oral history traditions, they wouldn’t need to read for entertainment (that whole concept must be mind-boggling). Because they probably didn’t do much large-scale trade coordination, they wouldn’t need to write for business. I can’t see any of them working for the government. As much as I love the joke about Quynh recognizing wanted posters, that wasn’t a thing until right before the 19th century in Europe. Quite frankly, I don’t think Andy or Quynh has a compelling interest in learning to read until the 1700s at the earliest unless they want to and enjoy the idea of writing (perhaps introduced by the younger immortal couple?).

Yusuf and Nicolo are a different story altogether, as they were both born after the invention of writing had become fairly common (ie. books were a thing and people used them, though they were rare and expensive). A longer and far better post than I could write explains that literacy in medieval Italy was in no way uniform: Nicolo is a total toss-up. He might have only known how to write, only known how to read, done both, or done neither even if he was a monastic priest or even a scribe who copied manuscripts. As a member of a merchant family, this still holds because 1) he might not have been the child raised to take over the business; and 2) you could pay people to do that pesky writing thing for you if it was absolutely necessary.

Yusuf came from a society which valued reading, especially in religious contexts. It’s called the Islamic Golden Age for a reason! Young children were schooled in Arabic and the Quran, though it might have been memorization-based. Older students would be taught to read and possibly to write as well in order to engage in scholarship around their sacred texts. He is from the beginning of the creation and popularity of madrasa (literally just “place of study”) as institutions of learning. He probably had an entire curriculum he studied, like modern schooling. Given that we can all agree that Yusuf comes from a wealthy background, it is a safe assumption that Yusuf can read Arabic and it is probably also safe to assume that he can write in it. I’d say that, if you are writing him as particularly wealthy or scholarly, he is probably even trained in the art of calligraphy (see an example below) which is to say he can write BEAUTIFULLY. The example picture is simply words on paper like we’d expect of a modern book, but calligraphy would be integrated into architecture and pictures. Don’t tempt me to make another post on this beautiful art form.

[ID: Maghrebi script from a 13th-century northern African Quran, thanks to Wikipedia.]

Moving on to 1770s France, literacy was becoming common but still varied with social class (especially before the Revolution) and it’s not clear whether Booker would have learned to read and write. It’s ironic that many areas of the country did not have had more than 40% MEN’S literacy while at the same time the country was considered a hub of the Enlightenment with it’s institutions of higher learning. The North/South cultural divide that I’ve hinted at here and here, shows up in the literacy rates as well. As a Southern sharecropper or laborer, he would be very likely illiterate. As a Southern peasant, we approach a 50/50 chance as he becomes more wealthy. As an artisan (if anyone headcannons this), he most likely is literate though the extent varies with wealth. Whether Booker knows how to read and write before his death is closely linked to class and wealth, but he would value literacy as a major social status signifier and be motivated to learn if he didn’t already.

[ID: four maps depicting “men” and “women” literacy rates for the period of 1686-1690 versus the period of 1786-1790. Adapted from "Reading and Writing: Literacy in France from Calvin to Jules Ferry, 1982."]

This brings us to modern history for Nile. Compulsory schooling for children is present in the US and being illiterate is (unfairly) associated with being unlearned. She was definitely taught to read and write in school, and literacy has been an essential skill throughout her entire life. This doesn’t mean that she is necessarily disrespectful of any illiteracy, because thirty percent of Chicago adults would “benefit” from literacy instruction. Literacy is still tied to class (and thus race) for a lot of Americans, though less strikingly for 1770s France. Nile probably knows some adults in her life who are illiterate or struggle with literacy and would understand that this is tied to socio-economics.

[healingchildhoodtrauma]

Sacrificing Authenticity for Attachment: The Adaptive Survival Responses of Children and Their Influence on Future Relationships

(Part 2)

Generations of projection and “normal”

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ~ Carl Jung

As I’ve written about extensively in other articles (see here and here), what parents (and schoolteachers) cannot tolerate in children is often what they learned to suppress during their own childhood. What they denied within as an adaptive survival response they now “project” onto the young ones before them.

When they were children, our parents likely learned some combination of: “anger is inappropriate”; tears are a sign of weakness; “don’t be silly”; deny your dreams for “reality”; “grow up”; be “good”; do things “right”; “suck it up”; “be responsible”; please; prove; accommodate. They learned to survive at the cost of who they really were. They learned to survive because going back in time living was less about thriving and more about coping, getting by.

It’s safe to say that our parents, their parents, and so on, had to dim their vibrancy to please their primary attachment figures and satisfy family, institutional or cultural norms. The collective ethos would have had an aversion to people being a “tall poppy”—to standing out mentally, emotionally, physically or spiritually; to being unique, a trailblazer, a wildly imaginative soul—much more than today’s societal aversion. And so to cope and survive, our ancestors adapted, and they were rewarded for it. Parental and societal approval incentivized them with false ideas of belonging. And with most institutions, such as church, government and education, built largely on blind conformity and standardized compliance, it was difficult, if not impossible, for our ancestors to not take the bait. Unwittingly, they “sold their soul to the devil”—they became pleasers at the cost of their authentic feelings, needs, desires and voice. Attachment trumped authenticity. The relational aspect of fitting into society, of blending with the flock, the ethos of family, institution and culture, became the approved and “normal” way.

Despite advancements in consciousness, we still see plenty of evidence of this today. Just consider: How willingly do parents support their teenager’s unconventional, artistic dreams? How often do teachers follow a child’s lead? How much do we still expect children to bend to authority at home, school, church and elsewhere? How often do adults bristle at the sight of a kid being a tall, self-governing poppy?

Back to our ancestors, their adaptive survival response to obey and fit in, when acted upon enough, became a well-worn identity of pleaser. Coupled with approval from family, institution and culture, the need to please motivated our ancestors to achieve through, say, high marks in school, being “good”, or performing in sports or debate. It compelled them to acquiesce to traditions that they, on some level, knew were deeply flawed.

Pleasing, not standing out too much, and proving themselves as worthy, was forged into their neurology. As they grew older, this wiring manifested choices and lifestyles that reinforced their conditioning and the continued denial of their true nature even more. It was a vicious loop, one that fortified the longstanding collective ethos built on superficial ideas of belonging.

It’s worth wondering: how much of culture is just this—a collection of fear-based beliefs and adaptive survival identities trying to fit in? How much of our societal systems is a collective pathology based on unresolved survival responses?

How much do people actually know where their choices come from? Who is choosing? Their authentic self or the adaptation?

Aside from the rebellious ones, the rare thought-leaders, the trouble-makers or revolutionists, our ancestors mostly lived with an external locus of control—making sense of themselves and the world based on outer influences versus intrinsically defined thoughts and feelings (internal locus of control). Without a strong enough core of “inner rightness” or integrity, without the courage to stand tall and speak boldly as the likes of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Mark Twain did, they eventually would have succumbed to a hollowness inside that nothing could fill.

But because almost everyone was primarily oriented externally (and there was no internet or social media to show another way), they didn’t know any different. Add the fact that skillful healers, shamans, wise elders and therapists weren’t readily available back then, and our ancestors, sadly, had little choice but to acquiesce. They had to settle without knowing they were doing so; to endure through their anxiety and depression through the aid of work, drink, and other distractions. Surviving, just getting by, not thriving according to one’s inner compass, was the accepted norm.

Not surprisingly, based on research conducted by Julien Rotter in the late 1950s, we learned that when a child orients primarily with an external locus of control, it correlates to rising rates of depression and anxiety. How could it not? Years of self-disregard will do that to you.

Twenty or thirty years later, having grown up and with their own kids, our parents, to varying degrees, predictably struggled to offer safe space for us, as children, to make our own decisions and for our wide range of expression. Having grown up with an external locus of control, they expected us to define ourselves by external norms: to fit in; do what’s “right”; follow instead of lead; travel the path traveled by others; stay true to the known and expected; not stand out too much; don’t make the family look bad; make your parents proud… again, at the cost of authenticity.

If you got angry, and your parent learned to suppress and judge their own anger when young, without full awareness, they likely suppressed your red-hot energy through admonishments, judgment, punishments, or a cold, stern look. It would have been hard for them to see anger as a healthy emotion because they learned that it was bad, or even harmful. You then automatically oriented and adapted according to external pressures.

If you, as a child, dreamt of being a musician and your parent grew up learning to be a hardworking, practical, responsible individual, then they may have shunned your imagination. They might have expected you to live and work between the lines, not take risks. To choose the coal mine or accounting desk instead of the mic. Without a strong enough internal locus of control, you likely forwent your instinct, your authenticity.

If you felt a wave of sadness when young, and your parent grew up with the message that “tears are a sign of weakness”, then the impulse could likely have been to direct you towards “strength” and away from vulnerability. Your parent would not have seen the strength inherent in vulnerability. In fact, just like with anger and big dreams, your parent may have viewed your tears as a threat.

As the saying goes: “A parent tells a child to put on a coat so the parent feels warm.”

The impulse to orient a child externally and dim their wild fire is not a conscious choice by the parent, but an unconscious reaction. It is automatic. Though it may seem something they are doing from clear volition, they are, in most cases, re-enacting the past —which is what re-acting is—by projecting their disowned authenticity onto their children.

This is psychology 101, a process also known as “transference”: What the parent judges within, such as anger, imagination or sadness, they transfer onto the child. Unconsciously, they experience the child’s anger as a projection of their own disowned anger, rather than as the unique and natural experience of being human, let alone a bubbling child.

In other words, what we keep in the shadows internally we have a hard time seeing in the light externally. Considering how bright children shine in their physical, mental and emotional states, how unbridled they are in their expressions, it is no wonder that their exuberance is a threat to the locked-up, shadowed adult.

A child consistently projected onto, and controlled as a result, grows listening less to their heart and more to their brain—to thoughts of what they should do/be to make mommy, daddy or the teacher happy. They think more and feel less. This survival migration away from heart / somatic awareness to the calculating mind is a means of self-preservation and navigating through life. But it is a most profound loss to the full-bodied child that has significant ramifications on current and future health and wellbeing. The rootedness and instinctual aliveness of the feeling-body is suppressed for the predictability of rationality. The once natural inclination to be honest, as children so beautifully are, must hide. The natural impulse to trust themselves, what feels right, their internal locus of control, is denied for insecure attachment.

Years later, it’s no wonder it’s so hard to have intimate relationships, let alone navigate through life.

https://www.vincegowmon.com/sacrificing-authenticity-for-attachment/

[readyaiminquire]

The Future as Vapor.

‘The semiotic phantoms, bits of deep cultural imagery that have split off and taken on a life of their own.’

              William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum.

  I’ve been thinking a lot about time lately. Not wholly sure as to why, perhaps it’s because we’ve just moved from one year to another, and taking stock is only natural; or perhaps because of the peculiar nature of the year that has just ended, with its pandemic, lockdowns, and the many challenges and tragedies borne out of it. Perhaps my research and its focus on time and temporality makes me particularly vulnerable to this sort of introspection; perhaps I am just predisposed to it? Likely, it is a mixture of all of these, but I already digress from the main point I was making, which is, quite simply: I have been thinking a lot about time lately. I’d wager the year that has just been, and which doesn’t feel as if it has fully ended quite yet, has a lot to do with it. My soundtrack for 2020, if there was such a thing, has undoubtedly been vaporwave, dyschronous ‘trapped-in-a-loop’ music for a year where everything stood still: a semi-ironic haunting from the past with empty, tinny beats and retro-synths, just mangled enough to sound new, but not too mangled so as to lose its retro-80s soundscape. It is, as absurd as it sounds, Muzak with teeth. The ironic resurrection of a dead aesthetic, brought back with a vengeance and with a purpose.

Vaporwave gets its name from ‘vaporware’, software that never was. Vaporware is software that has been announced, sometimes even showcased, but which then disappeared into some development maelstrom and seemingly vanished from view. It is neither cancelled, proclaimed dead and left to rest in the pile of ‘what could have been’, but always kept alive – a zombified software – as a potential. Its nonexistence-with-a-side-of-potential is precisely what makes vaporware vaporware. What does vaporwave take from this? The music is a form of Muzak, seemingly generic elevator music perfect for blending into the background but never meant to be listened to. This implies a vaporware existence (existence in nonexistence; or rather nonexistence in existence), vaporwave has more to it than that. It is precisely its purposeful meaningless soundscape that gives vaporwave ability to critique. Often made up of repeating synth riffs, tinny beats, sometimes sounds or jingles reminiscent of 1980s and 1990s TV and radio commercials, it is not an accident that the genre has modelled itself on Muzak. It is an echo of a past that has long disappeared into memory, even into cultural memory; a haunting reminding its listeners of what was, through its twisted soundscape of an otherwise well-trodden cultural form. The genre is best described as music optimised for abandoned malls.

Vaporwave is the audial version of a ruin. Or rather, it is the erection of a folly among ruins, a means to highlight the absurdity of the action itself. Its soundscape exists as a reminder of a past that promised a future that has not appeared; its central thesis – if it were to have one – is that we live surrounded by the ruins of this future-that-never-was. Crucially, and this gets at the heart of the present predicament, we only live and operate among these cultural ruins strictly because we have been unable to reconfigure these cultural building blocks into something new. The ruined landscape of a future that never existed has only come to pass because it has not been replaced by the new. Instead, the orientation has shifted to focusing on the past in the present, not the future ahead of us. The emergence of vaporwave in the present is thus by no means a result of the pandemic, the lockdowns, and the perceived stalling of time as a result, but rather predates it. The pandemic has likely brought such feelings of standstill to the fore, but it by no means created it.

This essay was prompted by a post on Reddit. Paraphrasing, the posted said something to the effect of ‘I don’t want to play the video games from when I was a kid, I want to feel like I did when I played the video games from when I was a kid.’ This, again, gets at the heart of the predicament. That feeling many of us remember from the past is one we have not felt in a long time – myself included. Indeed, video games are a fantastic case study for this development. Using an example from my own experience: I remember when I first played World of Warcraft. I know, your mental image of me as the narrator just shifted substantially, but bear with me. The nature of a fluid massively multiplayer online roleplaying game (MMORPG) wasn’t new by the time WoW was released. Still, it had never been done quite so well: the graphics were fantastic (at the time…), the level of interaction, the fluidity and connectivity of the world, the social aspects and community building… the list goes on, but the software was an adventure, and I (and countless, millions of others) couldn’t get enough of it. It was an unrivalled experience in many ways. Nothing like it had existed before. It was a completely new cultural artefact. It invoked a sense of future-shock.

WoW is, in addition, an interesting example as its original (well almost original) game was re-released in 2019 to thunderous applause, and a community bracing itself for another nerdgasm. The re-release was undoubtedly popular, it was undoubtedly fun, but it wasn’t the same. The feeling that it evoked in the past was no longer there. The future-shock with which it had once been densely packed had melted into air. This disconnect has even been picked up by parts of the community. A debate has raged between players who wish for no changes to be made to the original, for it to be released in its ‘pure’ state (as some changes had been made around specific mechanics, bugs that were never ironed out originally had been, and so forth), and players who call not for a recreation of the original game, but a recreation of the feeling of the original game.

But this is the issue with nostalgia. The original feeling of something unique, the future-shock as it were (or what German historian Reinhard Koselleck called the Überraschung; lit. surprise) cannot by definition be re-created; it must be created anew, with something new. The tragedy faced in the present, then, is that the dominant form among popular cultural media is that of nostalgia: a harkening for past experiences not for the experiences themselves but for that feeling of wonder that came with them: the surprise when playing your first 3d video game, or when first using a smartphone, or at the choice of music on an iPod (not to mention that the songs never skipped if you bumped it!). In many ways, this sense of surprise and wonder has been lost, even if innovation has sped up. Computing is faster than ever. Technology is near-ubiquitous in some parts of the world, yet nothing new seems to come from it. It is the same experiences, but faster, or in higher fidelity – occasionally this even folds back unto itself: vaporwave being a prime example — the mockery of a past cultural form that is only made possible with new technologies and innovations. In short, for all this new potential, nothing new is created.

Much has been written on what has caused this predicament, be it Mark Fisher’s argument that the foundations for innovative cultural forms have all been eroded with the rise of neoliberal capitalism, Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi’s analysis that the future has disappeared because social imaginaries have been eroded with the rise of global techno-capitalism, or indeed Fredric Jameson’s take that capital is too effective at rehabilitating the radically new. To varying degrees, these thinkers (and others) speak to the problem of nostalgia, specifically how the marketing of nostalgia is but a logical conclusion. In the present neo-liberal configuration, innovating is a risk, especially within the realm of culture and pop-culture. It is much safer, and more in line with the underpinning profit motive, to repackage and re-sell old cultural forms as nostalgia and pastiche: think of the Star Wars universe's resurrection yet again, or indeed the example above with the re-release of WoW.

‘Fine’, you say, ‘you’re right’, you concede, ‘but what’s the problem?’ you finally ask. The issue with nostalgia becoming one of the main pop-cultural articulations is that it reorients the present away from the future and towards a past long gone. A lack of future orientation, in turn, takes out much of the hope surrounding societal and cultural development and innovation. To frame this less abstractly: it is hardly news that scientific research and literature, typically in the form of science fiction, exist in a feedback loop. They both take inspiration from one another. Scientific breakthroughs lead to authors to push the boundaries of the imaginable, which in turn inspire scientists, engineers, and inventors to make science fiction science reality. In the words of William Gibson: ‘There are bits of the literal future right here, right now, if you know how to look for them. Although I can’t tell you how; it’s a non-rational process.’ Just think of how many present innovation and inventions we have already seen on shows like Star Trek. Lacking this future orientation, in short, invariably leads to a form of social and cultural stagnation. Let me be clear here: this is not a piece lamenting the ‘fall’ of some romanticised Western culture or some such nonsense. Instead, much of our present social, political and cultural order is underpinned by a futural orientation insofar as it is a belief in a future that drives engagement, innovation, and creativity; that creates future-shock. Why bother changing anything if ‘this is it’? It is precisely this process that ‘Bifo’ Berardi described as the slow cancellation of the future, and that the late Mark Fisher referred to when he asked, “Is there no alternative?”

When I say that nostalgia has become the dominant cultural form, this is what I mean. The conventional means of artistic productions have been subsumed under an unmoving profit motive. As a result, real, shocking, surprising innovation cannot take place. But I wish not to end it with such a conclusion, as merely pointing at a problem isn’t necessarily helpful. Instead, new & radically different forms of production must be discovered. Fredric Jameson calls such an exercise cognitive mapping, the process to resituate oneself in the cultural landscape and thus gain a new perspective. To continue a metaphor: to move out of the ruins and into new vistas to regroup, reshape, and ultimately rebuild. The first step is to realise the impasse faced, the second is to do something about it. This process can already be seen in some spaces, especially among grass-roots movements like the markers’ movement, citizen scientists, and other groups – be they tech-focused or artists’ collectives. What ought not be understated, on the other hand, is the importance of ensuring such a shift takes place, lest we end up reading our own collective epitaph:

‘[…]

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.’

              Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818.

[teacherintransition]

The Ugly American...who? Me?

My wife an I have become avid travelers and the closing of countries due to Covid-19 has hit us in the heart...

The time at home has given me chance to read about travel and given me pause to re-evaluate my behavior while abroad in the past and for the future...

The Ugly American, a novel written in the late 1950’s and which was a The New York Times Best Seller, was written by political scientist Eugene Burdick and writer and former U.S. Navy captain William Lederer. The book took a much needed look at the behavior of Americans traveling abroad; from the rugged backpacker hiking India to the field State Department personnel actually presenting the “official face” of our country in the international community. Prior to World War 1, most international travel by Americans was done by the wealthy elite among society. The “common” man through the tribulations of war, was given the opportunity to experience European culture and a yearning for seeing the world was fostered. If fact, there was a saying after WWI, “how you gonna keep Johnny on the farm after he’s seen Paree (Paris)?” The travel bug... wanderlust was born in the hearts of the middle class and gave rise to this phenomenon in film and in books written by Jack Kerouac, Cheryl Strayed, Ernest Hemingway up to contemporary writers like Anthony Bourdain, Andrew Sean Greer and Elizabeth Gilbert. Even Rick Steves who has become a knowledgeable source of traveling information with his travel guide series, has presented an informative open minded view of travel abroad.

All of these written treasures of traveling the world unveils to readers the magic that is to be found by stepping out your front door. The Ugly American presents a scathing look at how the “American” while overseas, displays an arrogant , intolerant, dismissive view of cultures far older and in many cases, more refined than ours. Burdick and Lederer’s book is set within the intrigues of international diplomacy and how that uniquely American view creates failure in the establishment of effective foreign policy. The authors listed and many more besides, instruct their readers to varying degrees to take more note of the intricate nuances a traveler should pay attention to and to show respect and admiration for the centuries of history and culture that exists all around us and that is not American. There is a common thread throughout all their works about what is missed when we stand outside and dismiss the uniqueness of every nation we might visit, instead of immersing oneself and appreciating it in a culture not our own. The “ugly American” has become a mythos of how Americans respond critically to anything that is not “MURICAN!”

Several other factors besides short sighted American foreign policy have contributed to the yoke placed on Americans traveling: cutthroat business practices while dealing with European, Asian and African countries; missionaries whose demonstrate a dismissive view of spiritual practices that have existed for millennia and, quite honestly, the behavior of tourists while abroad. Many experienced travelers draw a clear distinction between the tourist and the traveler. Kathryn Walsh differentiates the two in the following way:

Tourists

It's usually easy for locals to spot a tourist among them. A tourist may carry a camera, guidebook and map at all times and wear the same clothing he'd wear at home. Tourists tend to stay in their comfort zones a bit; they may speak only English instead of trying to learn phrases in the local language; stick to major cities instead of venturing to smaller towns or off-the-beaten-path locales; and stay in areas where the amenities are similar to what they have at home.

Travelers

Generally speaking, someone who considers himself a traveler will try to immerse himself in the local culture rather than standing out. If you're a traveler, you may try to explore the less-traveled areas and explore locations where tourism doesn't drive the economy. You'll interact with locals. Your goals for a trip will be to learn and experience new things, rather than to take a relaxing break from everyday life. A traveler may consider a trip a journey rather than a vacation.

The traveler presents a deferential, respectful and admiring view of the nations they are visiting and adopt the wise phrase from antiquity: “when in Rome do as the Romans.”

There is nothing wrong with being a tourist, often it is the less expensive approach to travel, unless you become the arrogant American tourist then perhaps you need to reassess. Travel is a big part of my retirement plans and goals, but you know what they say about the best laid plans. Two highly anticipated trips with two years involved in planning were rescheduled due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a disappointment we shared with thousands of tourists and travelers alike; and further postponements may continue to confront us. Perspective is needed in such a situation as being denied travel is far below other struggles this event has presented all of us. That being said, it has been a terrible disappointment down to my bones. We’ve missed much needed fellowship time with great friends, the excitement of seeing new places, the immersion in the culture and history of the locales, and, for me personally, our yearly travels have been my muse and inspiration for so much of my art. It’s akin to being very thirsty and having only a few drops to suffice. Introspection is the course of action when hopefully contemplating the possibility of the trips occurring.

To satiate the urge, we’ve read and watched travel programs in the interim and have evaluated our connection to the Ugly American concept? Are we ...them? In our past travels, have we appeared at all dismissive of the people and practices of the places we’ve visited? My wife and I have always been in awe of our travel destinations, so I feel fairly confident that we have not displayed the aforementioned arrogance of many American travelers. The thought that then arises is how much we have not allowed ourselves to be immersed in the culture; which, in the long run, is a detriment to us more than anyone. Our minds are open and willing to become part of the places we visit, but if we eliminate the brusque nature of so many Americans while overseas, what is the stumbling block that draws such distinctions when traveling? I fully concede that most Americans feel they have little to learn from many places on this planet, more is the pity, and there is much flawed thinking that goes into this mindset; but what fundamental differences exist between the cultures? I came across a very enlightening blog article written by Alain Veilell that was spot on in identifying the differences. Veilell simply observed that we run on different clocks. Not literal clocks but a “clock” obsessed with structure and deadline.... hello Americans! Veilell notes that Europeans start late and end late, while American and many Asian cultures start early and end early. Americans tend to view the un-regimented approach as being akin to laziness. I coached soccer and baseball for many years and many of my Latino players would not be as punctual as my other players. They were as talented and competitive, but their homes weren’t ruled by the seconds on a clock. Dinner started later, lasted longer, the dishes could wait... the priority was the quality of interaction with the people your with... ah, there it is ... sort of.

The average American meal last twenty minutes, while the average meal in Spain, for example, lasts two hours. They certainly don’t eat as much as Americans so why all the extra time? Why should time even be a factor so often? It’s the conversation and fellowship that is the priority not timing. While without question, the structured regimentation is a contributing factor to the American commitment to financial success, it also contributes to hypertension, stress, anxiety, depression and conflict that might be avoided with having an extra glass of wine and talking and not worrying if dinner is on schedule. Taking a little more time, enjoying the moment, letting serendipity reign may not be part and parcel of the Puritan work ethic; but it plays a helluva big part in realizing “La Dolce Vita.” This perception of time throws the rhythm off for many American tourists and makes us the ones to call the front desk complaining that the folks in room 210 are just too loud at 9:30 pm. The local population may just be getting ready to start dinner at that time. Remember, “when in Rome do as the Romans?”

While traveling, often American tourists view differences as a personal affront. “ I have to ask for ice?’ “What, no air conditioner?’ “They call the restroom the toilet?’ “Ugh how vulgar ... and a bidet? You must be kidding?” Truth to tell, Americans also suffer from mischaracterization from travelers from abroad as well. If I had a nickel for ever foreign exchange student who thought that all of Texas was a giant ranch with everyone riding horses and wearing cowboy hats. I think though that visitors to our country more often than not allow themselves to be pleasantly surprised than to have their feathers ruffled. It seems that we allow the “ours is better than yours” mentality to outweigh the magic of the unknown and the different. Every spiritual guiding ethos advocates living in the moment, treasure what is happening right now, greet the unknown with hope not hostility. The ugly American leaves no room for such an upbeat approach. Superiority mentality leave very little to treasure in this magnificent world other than what is yours and that limits learning, excitement, growth and just the pure joy that comes from trekking this world.

Is this assessment of mine a blanket judgement? No, not at all but there is some truth to it and there is something to be learned. As I self analyze, I found that I may harbor some of these traits and it’s good that I have time to stand back and look ...to learn. The worthy goal of being an affirming member of this global community is a purpose that I seek; and the rewards are far beyond just being intrinsic but rewards the cultures you visit with an admiration and respect they deserve. As these thoughts have been put down, it reignites the hopes that the planned journeys come to realization with the anticipation of more to follow. No more ugly Americans, British, Japanese or what have you, just eager travelers wanting to see and experience all that this world has to offer. Happy travels my friends.

Burdick, Eugene Lederer, William; The Ugly American ; Norton Publications; 1958

Veilel, Alain; “Why don’t Europeans Travel to Cancun?;” Quora; October 8, 2020

Walsh, Kathryn. "Differences Between a Tourist and a Traveller" traveltips.usatoday.com, https://traveltips.usatoday.com/differences-between-tourist-traveller-103756.html. 5 April 2021.

Photo from https://www.myheritage.com/

Photo from https://openlibrary.org/authors/OL13640A/Ernest_Hemingway

[raygoodwinmajournal]

101 - Psychogeography and Walking Photographic Practice

It is funny how ideas, thoughts and philosophies can eventually find themselves to meld together with one’s own practice - even from years ago. When I started taking photography seriously, I didn’t necessarily have an aim to where I was going or what I was going to shoot. I enjoyed the idea of just going out with my camera, and taking photos of things that I find within the environment that I would find myself in. This was heightened by my previous interest in street photography, which was mostly inspired by watching countless hours of DigitalRev TV videos on YouTube, with Kai and Lok wandering the streets of Hong Kong reviewing camera equipment with a comedic and sarcastic tone which I enjoyed. By watching these videos, I was inspired to just go out with my camera and see what I could find, almost as if I was hunting for that particular shot. What was different then, was that I was photographing people which is completely on the different end of the photographic spectrum that I undertake now. 

Man with Cat - September 2016 - Canon EOS 650, 50mm F1.8 STM - Ilford XP2 Super

Eventually, I would undertake this practice of going out with my camera to an undisclosed location with an old friend of mine, Thom. Before the lockdown ridden restricted world we live in now, I would hop on a train, travel to places such as Exeter, Teignmouth, Torquay, Newton Abbot and Plymouth to meet up with him and wander around to different locations, often accompanied with some VSOP fuelled coffee and miscellaneous ramblings about philosophy and pop culture. At the time, I didn’t realise what I was undertaking and that it was also being practiced by many other people, and there was a whole philosophy around it and where it all came from. It wasn’t until I researched more into what psychogeography was, I learned that it was Guy Debord that coined and refined the term - a person who I researched in my earlier work around The Society of the Spectacle, which focused on the society being a spectacle, commodity fetishism and loosely recycled ideas of Marxism. Another aspect which relates to psychogeography is the flaneur; one who saunters around and observes society. Sound familiar?

Psychogeography is the melding of psychology and geography, both things that would seemingly be unrelated, but by putting them together, we find a term which has its aim on how a particular space makes us feel and what the space really is upon inspection. Often, we drift from place to place without really taking in what we are seeing or feeling. These are often non-places, which Marc Auge hypotheses in Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. Auge sets out to describe how it is that our stage of modernity creates transitional and temporary spaces, particularly motorways, shopping centres and transportation terminals. These are just a few examples of spaces where time isn’t spent in large quantities, places where we are transitioning from A to Z, where these spaces are somewhere between B to Y, often of little notoriety and mostly anonymous in location. These non-places are sometimes barren, with no people around, quiet and uncanny. Feelings of being isolated, alienated, estranged and listless are just some emotions that can be felt in these depersonalised landscapes, but only if one can really take in their surroundings to just what it is they are surrounded by. 

It is of course no secret that I undertake a walking practice. More often than not, I don’t have a bulletproof plan for what it is that I am looking for. Usually, I head in a direction and see what happens. This is because I like to observe my surroundings and take in what is around me, and to see what invokes the feelings and emotions that I want to convey. This means that I end up in some strange places, with the feelings only heightened by what I am listening to through my headphones, or the deafening silence if not. On the odd occasion, I would trawl through Google Earth, dropping pins on potential locations which could work. This can only be found out if I walk to these particular locations and what I can find on the way, yet as Street View sometimes hasn’t been updated since 2009, some places simply either don’t exist or have been changed completely. But, this brings up an interesting area to psychogeography, which is the history of the place which can often turn into a palimpsest of itself. 

Plymouth is a good example of a geographic palimpsest, as Plymouth’s history is rich and varied, and being mostly destroyed during the many air raids undertaken by the Luftwaffe, the city had to be completely rebuilt with Sir Patrick Abercrombie and James Paton Watson setting an ambitious plan to make Plymouth a hive of activity and a city to marvel. The main city was surrounded by a loop, with a central spine running through. The remains of the historic buildings were replaced with concrete brutalist monoliths and limestone structures, with some traces of the past surviving the brutal attacks on the city. An example of this is Charles Church, which was mostly destroyed in 1941 from incendiary bombs, but now acts as a memorial to those that died during the raids, and takes pride of place in a roundabout, directing traffic across the city and also being mostly inaccessible due to the high rate of traffic. Yet, the church is surrounded by contemporary architecture which are often labelled as ugly or terribly designed, such as Drake Circus winning the first ever Carbuncle Cup, voted as the worst new building in the United Kingdom in 2006 (Designing Buildings, 2020).

At the core of psychogeography, is how the location plays upon one’s psyche, to really take in what it is that surrounds us and observing details about how it is created, what features within it and how being put together, it makes one feel. It is only by walking to these places we can truly exist in the temporary spaces, with Will Self describing the walker as ‘an insurgent against the contemporary world, an ambulatory time traveller.’ (Independent, 2011). Iain Sinclair is a notable name within the psychogeographical field, walking the entirety of the M25 which encompasses London and noting  what he felt and saw, noting the opening on the M25 was ‘the end of London and its liberties’ (Guardian, 2003), with the M25 replacing the Thames’ job of shifting contraband and illegal/legal cargo and acting as a circle road that doesn’t go anywhere, with people often getting stuck in their cars, trapped in traffic.

Chelson Meadow - December 2020 - Mamiya 7ii, 65mm F4 , Ilford XP2 Super

The M25 is often surrounded by obscenery, which is a scene filled with obscenity and things which are considered to be obscene. Sinclair cites the Beckton Alp as a good example of obscenery. Beckton Alp is a heap of old gas spoils from the Beckton Gas Works, creating a toxic and lurid ominous mound which found a brief second life as a ski slope for budding ski enthuiasts, and where Stanley Kubric filmed the battle scene at the end of Full Metal Jacket (Guardian, 2003). The Beckton Alp is just one of many inhospitably dangerous aspects that we have created since the industrial revolution, which mirrors Chelson Meadow. Previously reclaimed land and a horse racetrack, it later became a landfill site where it was tufted over with millions of tons of topsoil and turf, with gas escaping from the landfill beneath going back into the National Grid. Upon a quick glance, it looks like a naturally formed hill, but just like Beckton Alp, it is a toxic and harmful mass of detritus and hazardous waste which upon appearance seems like a lovely place for recreation. It is only by walking, acting as a flaneur and using a form of psychogeography can we see these spaces and the impact that they have, as without really looking at what our urban spaces are made of, they are just that; urban spaces. It is only when you deconstruct what it is that manufacturers these spaces, can we allow ourselves to feel and note how it affects our psyche. It also goes back into the space being a palimpsest, either showing parts of its history obviously or obscured by changes over time. This history of the site is as relevant as it is now, as it gives the location a context with how it was then, compared to how it is now. 

I have come to the realisation that I am a photographic psychogeographer, or photographic flaneur, with a similar practice to Iain Sinclair where I walk to locations, observe what is around me and how it makes me feel. The spaces that I often find myself by getting lost on the way are isolating from the usually busy streets of the city, mostly being quiet housing estates or derelict industrial estates. Most of the time, these are places where time doesn’t seem to exist, as if it stands still as the wind blows leaves and litter across the road. Without looking at the space with the gaze of a psychogeographer, the place is inherently anonymous and of little notoriety, frequently being unnoticed by the layman and rarely inspected. What I intend to do with my photography is to explore these locations by sauntering from place to place, and invoking feelings of estrangement, isolation, alienation and political malaise of which our system is responsible for, with the spaces reflecting these feelings due to the depersonalised and dehumanised landscapes. And similarly to Sinclair, I document my findings and experiences from the locations that I visit, but in a more catatonic and frantic fashion about how the location plays upon my psyche and reflects upon our state of supermodernity. What Epochal Territories is intended to do is to explore the relationship between these spaces and the feelings that modernity creates, and how modernity is often unfulfilling and laden with ennui. The starkness of the space is also reflected by the monochromatic nature of the photograph, as there is no colour and no joy to be seen, only the territories of the epoch.

Bibliography

Carbuncle Cup (2020). [Online]. Available at https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Carbuncle_Cup. [Accessed on 12/03/2021]

Sinclair, I., (25/10/2003). A circular story. The Guardian. The Guardian. [Online]. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/oct/25/featuresreviews.guardianreview27. [Accessed on 12/03/2021]

The Independent (17/09/2011). PsychoGeography: Will Self and Ralph Steadman take Manhattan. [Online]. Available at https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/psychogeography-will-self-and-ralph-steadman-take-manhattan-5339307.html. [Accessed on 12/03/2021]