#like I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people these days could not describe the difference between the internet and

[the-final-sif]

One of the things I think people as a whole don't understand about the internet today is that so much of what's wrong/dangerous/flawed about the internet exists because so much of the internet started as one person's hobby they built in their spare time or as a specific task for a specific function that was just useful/functional enough that literally everyone started using it. There's tons of biases built into the modern internet and some of that is carelessness but a lot of it is... just like. This was invented by a group of grad students fucking around for a few weeks. How the fuck were they supposed to know it'd be become the global standard and that nobody would bother to address or change these things?

Like, the whole reason that the US government gets the ".gov" domain name is because this entire system was invented in the US primarily for use in universities. Under the original system, you had to phone in to talk to the center who owned the list, tell them what name you wanted and then a person would type your name/ip onto the list attached to a nickname much like a phonebook. Then people slowly figured out domains and maintaining domain registries. And then the system became useful enough that more of the US started using it, and then people realized "oh shit, other countries want to use this too, guess we need to figure that out".

The "world wide web" or the thing we all know as the internet (and the reason that every website you visit has www in front), was invented originally by one dude trying to make his own job easier (Tim Berners-Lee). He thought it was pretty cool and shared it, and he was one guy who only spoke English and was just doing what he thought was going to work.

Like, this is a very lighthearted article talking about him, but I think it illustrates the point really well,

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, has confessed that the // in a web address were actually "unnecessary". He told the Times newspaper that he could easily have designed URLs not to have the forward slashes. "There you go, it seemed like a good idea at the time," he said. He admitted that when he devised the web, almost 20 years ago, he had no idea that the forward slashes in every web address would cause "so much hassle". His light-hearted apology even had a green angle as he accepted that having to add // to every address had wasted time, printing and paper.

via "sorry for the slashs"

We have an entire internet and infrastructure built rather haphazardly but also in such a way that going back and trying to change or fix things either requires an insane amount of work or could render vast swaths of the prior internet inaccessible.

Like, I think everyone here remembers Flash getting shut down and how much of childhood games got wiped off the generally accessible internet and relegated to projects like Flashpoint. It was really hard to see, but Flash was also a project started in 1996 (or 1993 if you count the OG version that turned into flash) that was supposed to be for a limited set of use cases, and not the medium on which major parts of the internet would run. By the time Adobe shut it down, Flash was incredibly dangerous with the constant risks of malware, it was buggy, slow, and there were a million better programs. It had to be killed to make way for better things, but because of how the internet was built, that death came at a pretty high cost.

So if you're ever wondering why it feels like the web is a bunch of dominoes ready to fall down at any time, it's because it is. And it does. And so many people spend so much of their time combating all the problems created by using systems that were never intended to handle everything they are currently handling because the alternative is a task of monstrous undertaking that would almost certainly turn decades of history to dust.

[ms-demeanor]

i really liked OJST in the mid-2010s but i didn’t stop reading cause of the cuck comic - wasn’t there also a comic erika moen wrote about (functionally) harassing lesbians with her now-husband?

In the mid 2010s closet-keys criticized one of Erika Moen's early diary comics and described Erika Moen as "Reassuring a cishet partner that it’s totally okay to use hate speech towards wlw at Pride" and condoning the harassment and fetishization of lesbians because of a 2007 comic that she had made as part of a webcomic she had written about gender and her interactions with her queerness.

The hate speech in question is the partner asking "are you sure you want to hold my hand with all these dykes around?" while they are pretty clearly at a Dyke Day event during pride, and the reassurance that 'it's totally okay to use hate speech toward wlw' is Erika responding "sweetie, I'm proud to be with you."

The comic is still up with a disclaimer that it was written at a different time, and I know that's probably not going to fly with a lot of people but if you were a bi woman in the early to mid 2000s it was pretty common to use statements like "lol yeah i'm into women my boyfriend is fine with it as long as I take pictures" to diffuse the biphobia from straight people AND to say shit like "I'm not a party bi, I actually love pussy, thanks" to diffuse the biphobia from queer people. (if you were a bi guy in the early to mid 2000s i'm sorry and I'm sorry now because we got LUG but that mostly went away and you *still* have to deal with the "gay in waiting" bullshit).

That comic ends with Erika and her partner looking at a woman and saying "I'd totally do her" while the woman thinks "pigs" and if you think that means that they literally sat on the street and vocally commented about lesbians passing by them or that they condone harassing lesbians (in, I cannot stress this enough, a diary comic written by someone in their early twenties who is realizing they are occasionally interested in some men some of the time after identifying as a lesbian their whole life), then I'm gonna go ahead and recommend signing up for some variety or other of literary analysis class. Do we think that Erika is seriously implying that she is going to make her boyfriend gay if she fucks him in this comic from a year later?

If this comic bothers you and you see it as a straight-passing couple giving the go-ahead to harass lesbians, you do you, I'm not saying you have to read the comic or enjoy Erika Moen.

I am saying it's a bit of a stretch, though, and certainly the least charitable explanation possible, and that we should probably give people some space to say awkward things about their sexuality and to make missteps when discussing it in their early twenties and not call them lesbophobic fifteen years after the fact for a college comic.

Moen also gets called transphobic because she has described trans men as adorable/cute in a way that could be read as patronizing in one comic and because she made a comic about wearing a packer for fun and for sexual gratification with her cis male partner as a cis woman.

Appropriately, all of these things feel very "late twenty teens tumblr callout post."

If it bugs you, you don't have to read the comics but I've talked about Moen before and I've gotten the anons in my inbox calling me lesbophobic for recommending her comic when in 2007 she made a comic about catcalling lesbians and condoning street harassment.

Which is frustrating because Erika Moen writes a comic about sex toys that has incredible body and gender diversity and is interested in making sure that people of all sexualities are having safe, enjoyable sex and talking openly about it. This is Rebecca Sugar condones war crimes level discourse over a creator who makes a genuinely good comic and gets dismissed as cringe by people who hate open discussions of sex and gets dismissed as a bigot (in ways that I think are incredibly unfair given the vast majority of her work) among people who *claim* to love open discussions of sex but who *actually* love witch hunts.

[kitkatopinions]

New RWBY ep (for once not two days behind.) Criticisms and praise below the keep reading

Praise

The theme song is starting to grow on me. It's got a bit of Sonic-vibes? Like Adventure 1 and 2 Crush 40 stuff, which is my business. It's not as good and there's something off about the sound mixing and Casey's vocals could be better, but it's starting to grow on me.

Weiss's reactions to the Red Prince kind of make sense to me lol. She's dealt with pompous rich people her whole life and I feel like both her sense of superiority that we still see at times and her probably projecting Jacques (and to a lesser extent, Whitley) onto this little red prince but with none of the history makes her treating him like an annoying pest at the start very in character.

I'm digging the suspenseful music that plays during the 'describe the rules' and the start of the chess match. And I love the concept of Ruby being forced to play as chessmaster, with the lives of her friends on the line. I also like that a lot of Ruby's soldiers on the board are already beaten up and busted. It gets across that the game isn't necessarily fair early on (which is good because in war and in the war in Remnant, not everything is always going to be 'fair.')

I also like Ruby's worried and panicked expression as she sits at the chessboard. She's treating this seriously.

Weiss's little bow is so cute.

Yang's little Sonic the Hedgehog style grin is also cute.

The animators are doing what they can to carry this volume in terms of facial expressions and getting across emotion when they can. Some of the choices aren't so good, but moments like these are (as far as the animation goes.)

While there are elements of it I don't like just from this brief listen, the OK Goodnight song in this episode sounds like it's pretty good and the kind of song I'd willingly seek out to listen to. That's a great improvement from my complete disinterest and dislike in the majority of the music from the last two seasons where I didn't actually like a single track. Looking forward to hearing more.

I kind of... Dig the cat sometimes? Obviously it's uncreative in its concept and I wish it was more humanoid and just based off of the Chesire Cat instead of actually being a cat and some of its 'random' lines are annoying and stupid, but. There's an element of creepiness to it that I wish they'd done more of, but is nice to see. His "Promises are like birds. They taste great, but always escape." *Leans in super close to Ruby's ear.* "You should go. Before he changes his mind." The voice acting is good, and hopefully after the writers are done trying their hand at humor with the cat, it takes on more elements of the cat from Coraline.

The loud sound effects for things like Ruby landing on the wall are good, they add an element of suspense to an otherwise not very suspenseful moment.

Neo fell like a comet and it looked fucking radical. I don't think she meant to turn into Ruby and Cinder? Or for her semblance to change and provide her with doubles? But I think it's cool. A bit campy, but cool. And I think Neo expressing her rage at Cinder and Ruby both by transforming into them was cool and a good way to establish her current angry mindset.

Criticisms

Yang: "Are we sure we should do this?" Ruby: "The Red King helped Alyx." I sure wish there was a way for us to know the actual story of Alyx In Wonderland in canon because all I know is that Alyx defeated the Red King at a board game, so Ruby being like "he helped her" has me immediately kind of frustrated. I do not know what to anticipate because it's like they're making up the details of this rip off Wonderland book while they're writing each episode. Why couldn't they have said that Alyx 'got help from the red king after defeating him in a board game' last ep?

Immediately no on the Red Prince btw. I know he's meant to be annoying, but I thought I might have a chance to like this character (my history of liking flamboyant posh spoiled rich kids is vast,) and instead he's just another annoying character in a volume filled with annoying characters.

Blake is so... Weird this season. I feel like she's so far removed from who she was in this first five volumes that trying to compare her to Blake of the past is pointless at this time, but she's even more different than ever this season and the "happy birthday" moment really just drives that home. I feel like if I picture Velvet doing everything she does, it makes more sense to me.

Also I'm not saying that Yang and Weiss's attitudes don't make sense, but they really aren't helping anything and I'm getting kind of annoyed with their "I'm too tired for this, I'm pissed off at everything, I'm gonna act like all of this is just too lame for me" kind of behavior. It's not helpful and it's getting boring. Ruby and Blake are at least trying, and the other two can't even be bothered to put on a happy tone for two seconds if it means they might get to go home to help the refugees being attacked by Grimm after suddenly losing everything and getting launched into Vacuo, the place Salem is likely to attack next.

Weiss: "Did I used to be this unbearably pompous?" Maybe not to that extent, Weiss, but you were horrible in other ways, soooo.....

Wait wait wait... So the toy block soldiers get hauled off into the bushes and beheaded, two seconds after them and the red prince were played for comedy by the way, and the reactions from Team RWBY are

There's no reason for us or Team RWBY to think these block guys aren't sentient feeling people, there's no reason for us to think that they aren't really dead, and Team RWBY just moves on immediately? No 'you can't do that?' No pulling out their weapons? No questioning whether or not they should fight this monster beheading his people for the crime of making something the wrong color (real creative of the rwby writers btw /s.) They just... Move on? No questions asked? God, when did these characters become so... Lifeless? Even if we say they're trying to stay on the red prince's good side, they don't talk about it? They don't have a moment of upset where the hot-headed Yang or the compassionate Ruby or the once-feisty-and-justice-driven Blake or even the so-done-she-can't-manage-a-smile Weiss so much as say "hey" or "what was that for?" Ruby literally said "How could you" when the red prince tossed aside green glass but barely reacts with anger, sadness, or surprise when he kills people? Yeah, I know she has an emotional attachment to that barely used in the show so far weapon because it was Penny's, but it's two people's lives she's pretty much ignoring here.

The Red Prince: *Smirking darkly while pointedly refusing to tell Ruby that no one will be hurt during his game, heavily implying that this game is to the death or at least to the injury.* The music: *Suspenseful and foreboding.* Ruby, in an uncertain and serious tone: "Uh, can you... Advance one space forward, please?" The little pawn on the board:

Soooo the pawns aren't taking this seriously, they're taking a swing and then relaxing as they get carried away in stretchers. The stakes for this got lowered by three hundred times and watching it, I no longer felt that much suspense. Sure Blake, Weiss, or Yang might get injured, but they're not going to die or get knocked out for the count in episode three, so I'm not that worried.

But wait, there's no reason to believe the Red Prince's red pawns are evil or non-sentient, and WBY are attacking them with a smile at Ruby's command? Bit weird, right? Why aren't Team RWBY trying to avoid needless harm or at least frowning when they're forced to harm things? Ruby seems to be the only person taking this seriously.

"We want to go home, and we believe the tree can get us there." The suspenseful music stops playing. Ruby's voice changes to a completely different tone as she says "Yang, you're up." Fun music starts up. Yang starts Wreck-It-Ralph-style punching Pawns. All in like two seconds flat. Guys, try to ease into your tone change! It's jarring!

"Blake is a faunus... And the rest of us are human." Guys, I seethe with rage every time the writers of this show act like Blake is a different species of creature than the others rather than a different race of human. Every time they refer to Blake or other Faunus as not human it is literally DEHUMANIZING. They literally will say "Blake is not human" and "Faunus aren't human!"

More angelic imagery with Weiss, which I don't like. How are Team RWBY even kind of struggling with these toy soldiers? By all accounts they seem very weak. And the combat... While it isn't Volume 5 levels of bad, it also just isn't isn't good. Combat in RWBY hasn't been that good since volume three, and it's a real shame. I want to like it, but I just can't. Also even when the pawns seem to be taking this slightly more seriously, I feel like it just isn't well done still.

The moving through the Red Prince's castle is so... No. It's like right out of Phineas and Ferb's Across the 2nd Dimension. I liked when Ruby hit the wall and reacted to that, I think they should've kept that without knocking it up to eleven immediately. And they didn't react to it? Ruby wasn't like "one minute I was on the floor, then I was on the ceiling I think, then it was this twisty ramp and the soldiers were right there but they were on other floors?! Upside down?!" Like, yeah, in the moment, she was just running, there wasn't time to ask questions while she was running, but then she stops running and is like "I didn't beat the chess game :(" When wacky stuff breaks all the rules of the universe they're used to, they should... You know. React to it.

Also

Ruby's flower petals had barely disappeared by the time the soldiers were walking over the trapdoor, and this looks like a long hall. How did they not see her jump into it?

Also also, why is it that the mice attacked Blake because specifically her ears and only her ears resembled a cat, but Little barely reacts at all to the presence of the Chesire Cat?

The Cat: "Times change, you know. And so do we when it's our time to change... Don't you?" *Ruby and the team get engulfed by a bright light and suddenly find themselves in a clearing outside.* Me: "Wow the cat just teleported them? They're going to take this time - the most obvious time - to ask about the cat's magic or react vocally to the fact that really freaky stuff like instant teleportation or gravity changes is going on or talk about how dangerous it is that WBY are small or ask the cat what the hell he's talking about, or say that all this wackiness being in the Alyx in Wonderland book is something they knew but it's all still really weird for them to go through in real life or something like that." Yang: "There was a Red King!" Blake: "But something's changed since then." That's what... We already knew that, guys! Didn't they already come to that conclusion earlier? Why - what - the dialogue in this season is so badly written.

Weiss: "Great, so we're not in the stupid story after all." Me: "They're going to take this moment - the most obvious moment - to talk about how they probably didn't just blue skadoo into the pages of a book and that this place might be an afterlife or another world and Alyx or the author must've gone through this and gotten back to Remnant and the fairy tale is just based on that story and that it isn't even like the story they know because everything is clearly different and also maybe express concern about the tyrant beheading people considering that there's no reason to think the world they're in is fake or that the stakes don't matter because it isn't just fiction (for them) and they're clearly in a real place where people have real feelings." Weiss: "We're in its stupid sequel." ... Close enough.

Could Little stop being annoying for three seconds? I want to kick this mouse into the sun like it's a little dog named Teacup

Weiss: "What is the deal with this cat? Can't anyone here be normal?" Blake: "That's not just any cat! When Alyx was lost, she met the Curious Cat who loved to ask questions!" Yang: "And the Curious Cat helped Alyx find the tree!" They're... They're only just now realizing that's the Curious Cat? Guys, if I had gotten transported into a book I'd read enough as a kid or was culturally well known enough that I could recall details about the plot as a nineteen year old, why would I not be able to recognize a character like that? Especially one so fucking iconic looking! This isn't getting transported into Narnia and meeting a little girl and because she looks like any old little girl not realizing right away that it's Lucy Pevensie. This is basically like getting to Narnia and seeing a big old lion breathing life into trees and telling you he's the real king of the whole wood and talking about the deep magic and then ten minutes later being like "Oh shit are you Aslan?" This is quite literally like getting transported into a world like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and seeing a grinning cat gradually disappearing while offering confusing conversation and then ten minutes later being like "Wait that wasn't just any cat, that was the Chesire Cat!" I am reeling.

All in all, this episode was better than the other two, but still really lacking imo. I give it a four out of seven. I didn't laugh once, didn't feel emotional once, but they got a couple of grins and a bit of suspense out of me.

[randomvarious]

Today's compilation:

Baby Boomer Classics: Sock Hoppin' Sixties 1985 Pop / Girl Groups / Rock & Roll / R&B / Doo Wop

Alright, well, I feel like a little explanation of terminology is warranted here in order to better contextualize this one. If you've ever heard the term 'sock hop' before and thought that it was just some creative mid-20th century lingo for 'party,' you're not wrong, but a sock hop was originally something more specific: a dance event where shoes were not actually allowed to be worn at all. See, when this term was first coined in the mid-40s, people were dancing in shoes that had hard soles on them, and invariably, those soles would end up inflicting a lot of damage on the floors that were danced upon. So, as a result, in order to prevent all this carnage, a sock hop was a dance party that was typically held in a school cafeteria or gymnasium for teens, in which its attendees would be forced to get down without wearing any kind of footwear. Neat, huh?

However, as shoe technology advanced and sneakers started using rubber soles, the altogether ban on shoes was lifted; but the term still ended up sticking anyway—sort of like how we still refer to the raising and lowering of car windows as 'rolling them up and down,' even though we use buttons for that now instead of hand-cranks. So, as such, even though a bunch of different certain types of shoes had now been permitted at these gatherings, 'sock hop' was still used widely to describe pretty much any dance party that was largely attended by teens, regardless of any rules pertaining to what could or couldn't be worn on peoples' feet.

And if you ever wanted a soundtrack to what those sock hops were sounding like in the early 60s, then this comp here's your ticket; at least for about half an hour 😅. The vast majority of these tunes turned out to not only be hulking hits themselves, but ones that got plenty of burn at sock hops all across the US too. And even though it's a very short collection, it's still eclectic; there's girl group pop, there's rock & roll, there's R&B, and there's a little doo wop too. Classics like Dion's "Wanderer," Del Shannon's "Runaway," Shangri-Las' "Leader of the Pack," The Angels' "My Boyfriend's Back," and more. A whole bunch of nostalgic goodies for grandma and grandpa to seriously crack a hip to.

And what's more is that there's a little cleverness that went into the track sequencing here too—specifically the bookends, which are both songs that involved a guy by the name of Ernie Maresca. As a performer himself, Maresca only ended up being a one-hit wonder, but as a songwriter and composer, he achieved a whole lot more. So, fronting this comp is one of his biggest triumphs as a writer, Dion's "Wanderer," and closing it out is his lone solo hit, a super catchy rock & roll and doo wop banger called "Shout! Shout! (Knock Yourself Out)" that went to #6 on the Billboard Hot 100 back in 1960. Quintessentially infectious sock hop material right there.

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure why this album cover was chosen for this comp though. It doesn't appear to be depicting a sock hop of any kind and no one seems to be wearing much in the way of early 60s garb either. As I understand it, the people who participated in these Baby Boomer Classics shoots for the series' original mid-80s run were friends and family of the people who worked at the label that released it, JCI. These shoots were probably low-budget affairs themselves and couldn't afford the time or effort to depict folks having the time of their lives in a gym or cafeteria in accurate wardrobes, so they went with this instead. Regardless of this misleading photo, though, rest-assured, you'll find some of the glory days of the early 60s sock hops within this comp here.

Only two more releases from this series to go!

Highlights:

Dion - "The Wanderer" The Shirelles - "Mama Said" The Shangri-Las - "Leader of the Pack" Bobby Lewis - "Tossin' and Turnin'" Joey Dee - "Shout" Del Shannon - "Runaway" The Angels - "My Boyfriend's Back" Claudine Clark - "Party Lights" The Chiffons - "He's So Fine" Ernie Maresca - "Shout! Shout! (Knock Yourself Out)"

[thathetaliablogg]

Hello there, it's me again, this time with a question. Im really interested in the Trans! England headCanon you did say you have, can i know a little bit more about this headcanon? I don't have instagram so i don' know if you writed already there. Hope you would have a wonderful day, hi from Sud Italia

Sure! I'm not sure exactly what you want to know since you didn't specify though? ^^' If you want to know why I hc him that way, it's mostly just because I'm trans and he's my comfort character atm, so... projection I guess? kjkljfsdkgljfkd

In terms of him though, yeah! He is trans! I imagine he figured this out pretty early, or at least - he knew he was a boy as soon as he HAD a concept of gender, and he definitely put his foot down (especially with the other kids like France) about his masculinity and his refusal to present otherwise. As his body started to change he obviously didn't have access to modern day binding equipment so he'd just do it with bandages, tight cloth, whatever he could. Luckily for him, he's immortal and his body regenerates so it's not like he had to worry about gaining permanent rib damage from that (unlike humans, who should never bind with bandages or anything just fyi!) Also, because of his long, long life he's had a long time to work on his voice, and so even before medical transition and things were available, he had become very good at passing as cis. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first known use of the word transgender was in 1974! So because of that, he didn't have a word to really describe himself for the vast majority of his life - other than asserting that he is very much a man as much as any of his peers are. I think even in the present day, only a handful of the other nations know that he's trans, because the others have no reason to, and he just doesn't really care to tell people because he never had to before, so why should he now? He's definitely had top surgery now, and hormones, but to be honest it's much more for him than anything else. Most people wouldn't even have known much of a difference.

[stellaluna33]

Ok I’ve been holding onto this thought all day. I’m no anti-logan person or anything but I’m not a huge fan of his either so when I say this, it’s sorta biased but anyways, I’ve been watching GG for the first time and recently have entered the logan x rory era which isn’t necessarily bad (but don’t personally ship them at least not yet) However, something in particular about them I just found so strange was the fact that so many of the supposedly big moments for a couple seemed so… anticlimactic, I guess?

Like I recently got to the episode where Logan gives Rory a Birkin bag (which is a whole other topic of mine) and she just felt like saying ‘I love you’ first and he couldn’t say it back yet but they did kiss. And that’s it. That’s just so strange to me b/c I’d assume it would be so much more build up towards Rory being the one to say ‘I love you’ first instead of someone springing it on her. There’s other moments as well that seem so casual when they’re so big which makes me feel a bit distant from the ship like.. gosh, I don’t know how to say it but it just feels like they’re there.

I dunno. Maybe time’ll prove me wrong?

Hi! Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if I've ever thought of it that way, but you're right! If you've read enough of my posts, I think it's probably pretty obvious that I'm not a big fan of Logan either... 😂 But I TRY to be fair... My husband is a lot more like Rory than I am, personality-wise, and so I was very curious to see how he'd react to Logan when he recently watched the show for the first time. The way it came out was that he HATED Logan at first, but gradually began find him more appealing and sympathetic and kind of charming (though I should clarify that we had to miss like the last quarter of Season 5 due to "technical difficulties"), which shouldn't surprise me (because he's RORY after all!) but I was a little disgruntled about. 😂 Because I just. Don't get it. So ANYWAY, all this to say, my opinion won't be unbiased either, haha. I also infamously dozed off and dropped my phone on my face when I tried to watch all of Logan and Rory's scenes to research for my fanfiction, so yeah, I think it's safe to say that I also found the relationship a bit... lacking. 😂. I don't know!

I don't know how other people view them, or even for sure what the writers' intentions were, but if I had to guess, maybe fans of that relationship see that casualness and emotional distance as a sign of... maturity, maybe? I would say that Rory's patience about him returning her "I love you" could definitely be read as a sign of maturity, her having learned from her experience with Dean and not wanting to treat Logan the way Dean had treated her... But yeah, overall, I confess I mostly just get a "going through the motions" vibe from them the vast majority of the time. I mean, I think they're fond of each other. Rory certainly seems devoted to him in her way. But there's just something missing. They're casual, but not in a way that makes me believe that they're just comfortable and natural together. It's hard to describe what I mean! But... Compare Rory and Logan's scenes with, say, Rory and Jess at their most comfortable, like the "22.8 miles" or prom conversations. There's just a relaxed and deep natural WARMTH there that makes them feel really comfortable, and I just don't get that feeling from Rory and Logan. This is probably where their fans would say that that difference was only because Milo and Alexis were dating in real life. I don't know, maybe there might be some truth in that, but it doesn't change the way I respond to each couple on an emotional level.

[madara-fate]

What do you generally see eren as & explain why?

A hero

Anti hero

A tragic hero

Antagonist

A villain

A lot of people tend to have a hard time choosing as they dont know which one. Some people are biased.

For me, I don't really see why Eren has to be classified as just one of those options. One of the biggest themes in Attack on Titan is how it's all about perspective; someone may look like a hero or a villain from one perspective, but when you see and understand things from the other perspective, you realise that it's not so black and white. I mean, many people initially viewed the Warriors as villains, but their perspectives ultimately changed, and with good reason. This series is all shades of grey, and I think that many people have viewed Eren as most of, if not all of those things you mentioned at one point or another during the story. If anything, I think that Eren Kruger said it best when he was speaking of Ymir Fritz. So to quote him and apply his words to Eren Jaeger - Eren can be all 5 of the things you mentioned, all it takes is for people to believe it:

Personally, I'd describe Eren as someone who wants to do something heroic for his people, but that endeavour has caused him to be seen as a villain to the rest of the world, and caused even some of his own people to at least view him as someone who needs to be stopped. They understood and were appreciative of his motivations at the end, but that's besides the point. The fact that even his own people felt that he needed to be stopped, should tell you something regarding the sheer immorality of his actions.

Now, I love Eren's character, and think he was absolutely fascinating after the final time skip, but that doesn't mean that I must blindly support him in everything that he does, just because he's the protagonist, because that's an argument that I've heard from people as well - that he's the protagonist so how could we not support him? Which I find absolutely preposterous, as if the protagonist label makes you exempt from all wrong doing.

Those who are ride or die for the characters they've been with since the beginning will see Eren as a hero, and may even try to justify his actions as self defence, but I can't get behind that at all, because at the end of the day, it's very obvious that not every single person in their world wished for the death of all Eldians. So when Eren or fans say how "the world" wishes for the deaths of all Eldians:

That's not true. Perhaps the political leaders of each country supported this, along with the vast majority of the general public in many nations like Marley, but I'm pretty damn sure that a sizeable portion of the world's population just wanted to continue minding their own business and living in peace, and at the very least, had absolutely nothing to do with the mistreatment of Eldians, and yet, Eren was still gonna kill every last one of them, despite the fact that the majority of them did Eren and his people no harm. Even a nation like Hizuru, who actually allied themselves with Paradis Island, would have gotten trampled by the Rumbling all the same.

Eren's perspective was understandable, his motivations were noble, but his methods were fucked up beyond belief. Yet, having had this clairvoyance due to the Attack Titan, he truly believed that it was the only way, and no one else had the perspective that Eren did, so there's another thing that needs to be taken into consideration.

[limeade-l3sbian]

Hey. I don’t know if you remember me, but a few weeks ago I sent an anon to you where I was basically lamenting feeling worthless or something of that similar tone. That I was going to die of obesity and I saw no out of the end where someone would have to look at my dead body in disgust.

You came with some nice and encouraging words.(thanks for that btw again)

Today I was out for the first time in a long time. I was visiting the psychiatry department in my city, and had a scheduled taxi to collect me when I had to go home. When I got into the car and for 95% of the car ride, the taxi chauffeur was nice. He and I was talking about video games. Both coincidentally had an interest. It was a decently friendly time filler convo. However when the conversation naturally came to a halt, silence followed and he suddenly said, while I could see out of my peripheral view him looking me up and down with a smirk, “did you ever do sports? it certainly doesn’t seem like it”. It was such a blow to the stomach. I know men are gross and value women solely for our appearances, I know men are callous and most often incapable of being empathetic, but after such an otherwise nice convo, the knowledge that he had most likely been thinking “wow what a fat piece of shit she is” the whole time was so heartbreaking. I barely go out, I keep to myself, I’m not very confrontational, i was polite the whole drive. And yet, that’s what he said to me in the end.

This is why I feel hopeless. I always always be my body and I will always o my be offered respect by the vast majority of the world if i’m skinny and pretty.

Good to see you again, anon! 💜

I think maybe two weeks ago, I had a man swerve to the curb to drive along side me. I had my music in and was walking with my arizonas, so didn't respond since I was clearly occupied. But he kept following, leaning out. I glanced at one point to make sure he wasn't trying to be helpful but could hear what he was saying through my headphones. Including him cursing at me before finally driving off in his clown car.

Whether they're flirting, insulting, "negging", or just really talking in general, it's important to understand that men's words mean literally nothing. I can't describe to you how little they matter. How much are you thinking they mean? Well it's less than that and so on. Very often, I believe men have a word quota that they feel they must fulfill, and so terrorize the women around them with meaningless strings of sentences regarding what they prefer and how they feel about certain things. More often than not, unasked.

Men also don't cut their dogs' balls off as not to "emasculate" them. Is that a collection of people you want to listen to? These same people have convinced you that not being thin and not being pretty is a death sentence when it's not. I've been chubby my whole life and still had meaningful, loving relationships. You're absolutely right. You will always be in your body. You cannot change that. So you might as well start getting comfortable in there and figure out if you want the couch more to the left or more to the right because that's your home. Your headquarters where you can head back after a long day and plan your next scheme to _______ (whatever your schemes may be, we've all got em lol).

You can't keep gauging your worth on the opinions of others, babes. ESPECIALLY MEN, COME ON BESTIE. Doing that just about killed me, literally. I'm not saying it'll be overnight, but that dam of self doubt and disgust will break. You're gonna be staring at the wall and come to that crossroad, bc the way things are isn't sustainable.

Am I going to sink and let the void swallow and define me? Or pull back and say "fuck it" and tell the next male who can fix his lips to say some shit like that to me that he can go fuck himself?

Easier said than done, but trust me, I got there and you can too. 💜

[scripttorture]

Hi! I'm not sure if this falls within your scope, so I apologize if it doesn't. I was curious about if you have any info on common types of torture committed by criminal organizations- specifically in my case, the American mafia/Cosa Nostra. I've had some difficulty getting reliable information and have heard conflicting things about *if* they even regularly torture individuals. Thank you in advance for anything!

That’s a very good question. It’s not outside my scope but I’m not sure how good the information I come up with will be because this isn’t something I typically look into so my usual sources/starting points might not be the best ones.

 With the pandemic on and no books on American organised crime specifically on hand I think I’m going to have to treat this question more generally. However this book came up during my searches and I think it might be a useful starting point for research or worldbuilding. It’s a research piece comparing the functioning and criminal activities of three Italian criminal organisations, the American mafia, Japanese Yakuza, Chinese Triads and a Russian criminal organisation. If nothing else it should give you an idea of how different organisations like this function.

 You might already be aware of the legal definition of torture. Essentially torture is defined as any form of painful stimulus that is deliberately inflicted by a government official (or in some cases an organised group that holds territory) for the purpose of ‘extracting information’, forcing a confession, punishment or intimidation. Any of those motivations still count if they’re aimed at a third party rather then the person being tortured (ie if a soldier captures and beats the brother of an enemy soldier to try and get information from the enemy soldier, that is still torture.)

 Some countries explicitly include international organised criminal gangs in their anti-torture laws. Some don’t.

 From a behaviour standpoint I think it’s fair to say that some of these groups behave more like we’d expect from torturers and some don’t.

 Members of groups like the LRA, Daesh and Boko Haram will generally be classed as torturers if they act in ways that meet the other criteria. Because at their height these armed groups effectively occupied and controlled areas of the countries they operated in. They took control from local governments to the point that those government organisations effectively ceased to function and were replaced by organisations (or lack thereof) that the criminals wanted.

 And all of those groups tortured as part of a wider campaign of terror.

 As you move away from that pattern of criminals trying to create their own country then things get dicer. Whether a group meets the definition of torture depends on the country. And from a research point of view the behaviour we’re looking at may get further away from what we typically see in torture scenarios.

 For instance the SEC and groups concerned with fishing in Thailand don’t really control territory. They can’t be understood to have taken control from the government in the areas they operate.

 But both operate large scale slavery operations that traffick people across boarders in order to exploit them. These operations by their nature concern the abuse of thousands of people. They generally also have specific people that are- I’m gonna say ‘primarily responsible for the stages of the process where a lot of physical abuse takes place’.

 Basically they have people whose effective job is abusing others for the vast majority of their time. Whether it’s the men smuggling enslaved people across the Sahara or guards on the fishing boats out at sea.

 You also have organisations that fall somewhere in between the two patterns I’ve described so far, like Mexican Cartels.

 But there are also large organised criminal gangs that aren’t necessarily involved in this scale of people trafficking or systematic abuse. This doesn’t diminish the impact of their crimes. But there is a difference between crime that by it’s nature always results in direct harm and crime that may but does not necessarily result in direct harm. An extortion racket is not the same as a slavery ring in terms of injury and body count. 

 While it doesn’t form part of the legal definition the scale of violence is important here. A torture case typically means thousands of victims over a relatively short period of time. And because of the scale it means the people involved in this abuse could easily be carrying out violent attacks for the majority of their day, every day for months or years.

 This is not necessarily the pattern in all organised crime.

 Smuggling goods, loan sharking and rackets don’t necessarily lead to the same scale of violence or the same constant exposure to violence.

 Drug smuggling can mean smaller scale slavery but to be honest I know next to nothing about it outside of the slavery aspect so I’ll leave it at that.

 All of this might seem like extraneous information when the main question is about torture techniques. But the thing is- torture isn’t defined by the techniques used to inflict pain and the majority of those techniques are very very simple.

 The most common torture today (probably historically as well) is hitting people. And I’m pretty sure that members of any organised criminal group hit people.

 Most of the other common tortures would be impractical/impossible without the ability to hold someone prisoner for an extended period (days or weeks). Starvation, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and stress positions are not really possible if a victim can’t be held for several days.

 As for the other common torture techniques used in America today- Well one of them is basically Tasers or stun guns. I’m pretty sure if they could get hold of them a lot of violent criminals would use those devices. They’re expensive but they’re simple to use.

 Waterboarding is pretty simple but it can also easily go wrong and when it does it can cause some pretty…. Difficult to disguise injuries. Like brain damage. Dry choking tortures have the same problems.

 Getting back to the main question- I think part of the reason that you’ve heard conflicting things might be colloquial vs precise usage of the term ‘torture’. Because it isn’t clear to me that the American Mafia do practice torture regularly from a legal stand point.

 Mostly because I haven’t seen anything saying they’re involved in large scale slavery in America.

 But it’s incredibly likely that they do use some of the same techniques. Purely on the basis that most of the time those ‘techniques’ are ‘apply hand to victim’s body with force’.

 And most of the time it doesn’t need to be any more complicated then that.

 Sorry I couldn’t find you anything more specific but I hope this helps. :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[robotpals]

hey! idk if you're still taking questions about mhc, but i'm committed to mt holyoke for this fall and still not 100% sure. i kind of have a lot, so answer as many or as few as you'd like lol they're in order of priority

completely honestly, how much do people still call it a "women's college"? it was a really big factor for me that mhc was gender diverse, and since visiting has been kind of funky this year, it's been hard to tell how committed the school actually is to trans allyship (full disclosure, i'm a cis girl) and how much the students try to respect that

related to how welcome men and nonbinary folks feel-- when i show up on campus, are like 99% of the students going to be women (trans or cis), or am i being overly pessimistic about the remaining emphasis on women?

sustainability is a big focus for me, and was a factor that actually had me leaning away from mhc (most of the other schools i applied to were shooting for carbon neutrality years before 2037, and had more options for composting and such). the actual question part is: how hard would it be to try to be low/zero waste on campus (esp. plastics)? would the dining halls be able to accommodate that (outside of COVID years)? are there any significant obstacles i might run across?

i'd also like to get more politically involved in college, are there a lot of opportunities for that? (like, protests, or mutual aid, or politically oriented clubs)

how hard is it to get the classes you want? how many classes did you personally take at the other consortium colleges? (or if you're not comfortable with that, what might the average be?)

thank you so much! i'm sorry if this is too much or my tone is weird, and feel free to redirect me for any of this

Hello! Congratulations to you as well -- whether it’s where you end up or not, you should know that I’m proud of you for applying and being accepted! I’m not sure how helpful I’ll be for some of your questions, but I can certainly try to answer them. I’m putting a read-more because I have a feeling my answers may be long!

As to your first question, MHC still is a women’s college -- though a gender diverse one (I know that isn’t a helpful answer, but I think it describes the culture best!). Maybe the best way to think of it is that Mt Holyoke’s history is deeply steeped in what being a women’s college means: a lot of the traditions and details of the school can be traced back to its days as a women’s seminary. The fact that it was a place for women to get an education in a time when typically women couldn’t is something to be proud of, and definitely something that students celebrate -- though of course the category of “woman” who could be educated in the college’s early days was very limited to white affluent women. Something that I appreciated about MHC was it felt like nearly all of my fellow students were as social justice oriented as I am -- so there were always discussions about recognizing the college’s failings and history of discrimination, as well as celebrating those students who pushed for diversity and opened the doors to students who wouldn’t have been admitted in the college’s early days. That doesn’t mean that mhc is perfect, and as a white woman I’m not the best person to talk about those issues, but in general I thought the student body was willing to have hard discussions and advocate for critically examining mhc’s past.

I think my years there were interesting because my first year was the year the college announced it would accept trans women (the first of the “seven sisters” / historic east coast women’s colleges to do so!), though prior to my arrival trans men (those who applied still closeted/questioning and then came out while a student) were enrolled. I should disclose that I, too, am a cis woman! So any thoughts I have on what it’s like for trans students is based entirely on conversations with trans friends and not personal experience. Basically, though MHC is a women’s college, I think the large population of lgbt students means that gender/respect for trans students is more at the forefront than it would be at some other schools. I’m currently a student at a Big 10 state university for a masters program, and I definitely think that MHC was way more accepting of gender diversity than here -- asking about pronouns and respecting people’s gender identities were totally commonplace at MHC seven years ago, but undergrads I know at this university have said that there are lots of students who treat discussions about respecting pronouns as a joke :/ -- I hope that MHC has only continued to improve its treatment of gender diverse students since I was there.

That being said, there are definitely transphobic students -- and unfortunately, old and bigoted staff members. I remember when I was a student, the college released a memo for staff/faculty that said that emails to the student body shouldn’t use gendered language (like saying “Hey girls” or whatever LOL) and while every student I talked was in support of that, there were definitely rumors of some older professors throwing fits about that. I don’t remember any terfs on campus -- thank god -- but there was a “young republicans” student group that was super obnoxious (they only had three members LOL but they complained CONSTANTLY about how other students telling them to shut up was infringing on their first amendment rights). 

I have no idea what the numbers are, but when I was a student, it definitely seemed like the vast majority of students were women/women-aligned (cis, trans, or nb) or nonbinary, so if you really want a campus with more men, MHC may not be a great choice.

As far as sustainability: I really don’t know. I know that a big discussion when I was a student was divestment from fossil fuels, and MHC refused to make any promises to divest. When I was a student, there were a couple student advocacy groups dedicated to challenging the college to be more sustainable, so if you want to learn more, I would try to find info about those organizations and ask them. Sorry I don’t know more! For some reason I thought MHC composted, but I don’t know for sure -- I know that when you finish eating, you just put your plate on a conveyor belt and there are dining hall staff who sort through what’s what. Again, you could reach out to dining and ask! And if you end up at MHC and they aren’t composting, I think that would be something they might be open to implementing -- advocacy is key.

For political involvement, I think there are lots of opportunities! MHC is in a fairly rural location, but students on campus when I was there organized marches, walk-outs, and protests for the student body. There are advocacy groups for different interests, as well as cultural groups that organized events around specific issues. It’s definitely a campus where you can get involved with issues that are important to you. Again, I don’t know what the culture is like at other colleges, but in comparison to my graduate program, activism at MHC was far more robust.

For classes, I never had trouble taking the classes I wanted! But to be fair, my majors were uncommon enough that that isn’t too surprising (religion and ancient studies LOL). Among my friends, no one seemed to have trouble getting the classes they wanted -- the only class that I remember people having trouble getting into was a class on the history of witchcraft in the gender studies department! Which is SO mt holyoke LOL. 

I only took one class outside mhc -- which in retrospect I regret not taking more -- it was a class on Icelandic saga literature at umass amherst. It was a really fun class, and I enjoyed getting the glimpse into what life would have been like if I had gone to a big state school for undergrad! Overall, I thought the process for taking a class off campus was super easy and the only downside was the bus ride was like half an hour.

I hope my answers make sense! I feel like I should disclose that I’m finishing up my grad school program this week (!) so I’ve been particularly nostalgic for undergrad recently -- I’m stressed about exams, so my rose tinted glasses are ON 🙃 but I hope this has been helpful! I think that so many people make it seem like college is the most perfect wonderful time ever, but in actuality it’s pretty weird -- people living away from home for the first time, trying to figure themselves out, exploring their interests and passions, etc. ... so I would encourage you not to think of college as a perfect place, but a place where you will have room to grow! I definitely had times where I HATED being a student at mhc, but I certainly would have had those times anywhere I went -- and in the end, I’m glad I chose mt holyoke and I think it was a place I was able to grow and flourish into who I am today!

[bonesandpoemsandflowers]

Hey! I am asking for advice. I fucked up a few years ago at the telling apart ghosts and gods and would rather not go through that again. Could you help me out? I really want to get back into it but that was a very bad experience so I'm anxious. Thank you!!

Anon, I love this question and if you're willing to drop some more details in my inbox, anon or not, please do. I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience, but take heart, maybe, that everybody does this at SOME point, and taking a few years off to process is actually a pretty snappy turnaround time.

(spooky occult people only pls)

(scroll along, the rest of you)

It IS a tricky question, though.

Tough love up front: there is no entirely safe, entirely pleasant way to do magic. Fundamentally magic is transformative and therefore often uncomfortable. There's fears and negative emotions to work through, and there's also just some straight up tedium and drudgery, and no matter how cool you are, no matter how sure you feel about your place in the grand scheme of the universe, you will eventually question everything and get some things wrong. There will not only always be risk: sooner or later there will be pain.

But! Is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY, anon, and I'm not gonna try to persuade you because if you're asking, you've already made up your mind. You just want to not make the same mistakes over again. You want to make brand new mistakes! It is the only way to move forward.

There is a difference between the merely uncomfortable and the truly dangerous, so ultimately it's a game of knowing when fear is a just a trial to get through versus when fear is a warning keeping you safe. The first time I tried to answer this question I made a quick list of protections, but that's not really the issue. You're wiser than that. You're asking about something diagnostic.

Discernment is the greatest occult skill and one that’s difficult to quantify. It's one of those paradoxes of inexperience, nigh impossible to hone without practice, yet a skill you need in order to get out there and practice.

whatever your prior experience was: what did you learn from it? what was the point where you started to feel something went wrong? identifying that moment, how it felt, how you felt it, will help you more than anything I or anyone else can tell you.

I am, honestly, not the best person to describe how to increase your psychic sensitivity or whatever. The good news, maybe, is that you don't have to be great at discernment before you start. Yes, you can put all your effort into sharpening your senses before you even go out there, which is a noble way of doing it and maybe it will eventually even work, OR—you can put on some safety gear and wade out into the swamp wearing your little floaties so that you don't sink.

Your metaphorical swimming wings here are protections and banishments and the preemptive assistance of something bigger than you on your side. This answer is mostly going to focus on that last part, because "ghosts and gods" implies, I think, that you are ready to work with gods, or at least eager, which is, like, at least half of the process.

However, even then, I do wanna say—while I don't want to discount your negative experiences at all! I don't know anything about them, but I'm sure it was awful!—you, all by yourself, can probably banish most ghostly things you're likely to run into. There's a lotta bark, and usually not that much bite. I wrote up some less formal banishing methods and posted them here on ye old witch blogge, but really, you can mostly just yell at stuff to leave.

(there is a fair amount of repetition between this post and that one! I apologize. I mostly typed these late at night over the course of several days)

Now! Assistance. An ounce of prevention vs a pound of cure and it’s good to pack light.

So much of magic across time and cultures is about negotiating with spirits of some flavor or another. Maybe it's worship or maybe it's bindings or maybe it's strictly transactional, but as beings made of flesh we are forever making pacts with beings made of something else, and hey, it usually works.

The complication here is that the distinction between ghosts and gods maybe isn't that simple. Mess with the wording a little and Catholic saints are basically both. And so are some orisha, some loa, and so on. Baron Samedi (lord of the cemetery, best bang since the big one, etc etc etc) in particular, out of the vodou pantheon, may or may not have been human once, depending on who you ask.

Further: the most readily available spooky occult forces you have are your ancestors. So you'd file that under ghosts, maybe, except that with ancestral veneration practices and all, we inch closer to god territory, in a sense. At least—the rituals start looking the same from an outside perspective. Santeria, Vodou, Epiritismo and many more practices that the ones I'm familiar with involve working with your ancestors to accomplish your worldly goals. We don't consider them ghosts when we work with them; that's not the word we use. But arguably—why not?

So the trick here isn't necessarily how to sort ghosts from gods as much as it is to hang out with some NICE (to you) ghosts and/or gods.

How do you do that?

If you have a good relationship with your ancestors, then you start there. If you, like me, or lots of other long disowned and disinherited magicians, have a disconnect there, then—welp. Consider getting over it by going back further in the family tree (this is what you will inevitably eventually do). Somewhere in there you have someone kind, I promise. But that's not advice I could have followed ten years ago, so I'll get to the alternative in a minute. Let's assume, for the moment, that you accept the logic that your ancestors have a vested interest in protecting their line, and in fact having an active magic user willing to work with them probably makes their afterlives much easier.

There's tons of guides online about how to work with your ancestors. I think sincere, unstructured prayer and a glass of water are the simplest and most powerful of offerings. A candle, if you have one. Just flipping on a lamp or a light switch if you don't.

(I travel with a little LED tealight and a mala made of skull beads carved from ox bone, but I am unnecessarily spooky and dramatic. If anything, my ancestors prefer the plain obsidian mala I first started with. But the aesthetic.)

I'm very, very informal in my ancestral practice. It still works.

Tell them you want to establish a working connection, talk to them about what's going on in your life. Keep it short and don't worry about whether or not you feel anything yet. It might take weeks before you feel something, and that's okay—discernment is, like I've said, the most important but also hardest skill, and it usually takes time and repetition. Offer them something—anything, really, and honestly the plain glass of water is traditional—and ask for their protection. They will almost certainly give it to you.

"But Flowers," you might say. "Fuck that and fuck 'em. I'm not ready to fuck with my family yet."

Alright, little one! I feel ya. It took me ages to warm up to the idea. I promise that it's worth it when you're ready, but having covered ghosts, let's move on to

GODS

Step one: ask yourself if you need to fuck around with gods in the first place.

Step two: fuck around and find out.

Step three varies depending on who you're looking for. There is a great deal of anxiety about this in occult circles, especially among people who use the term "baby witch." People are terrified of making the wrong choice. They want it to be PERFECT. They want to be correct. "Who is calling me?" ask a thousand seekers, across forums and places. "I saw a butterfly the other day. IS IT A SIGN?"

(shit, dude, I dunno, probably not, but potentially maybe. Nobody can know but you. just keep in mind that butterflies etc exist on their own and go around doing their own thing and this has absolutely nothing to do with you the vast majority of the time)

You don't need to be wait to be called by a god to offer worship and/or develop a working relationship. I would argue that most people aren't really called, and if you are, you will KNOW. Tumblr likes to say gods need consent and I think that's fucking hilarious. There is no folkloric precedent for that. If you are Called, capital letter Called, you will know, and whatever happens next is between you whatever bizarre shamanic experience you end up having, because you WILL have it, good luck.

But probably that's not the issue here! Moving on with our hypothetical.

You're not waiting around for divine intervention. You're being proactive. You're not waiting for The Call, or even a mild call. How do you choose what god you're petitioning for protection? I doubt you're entirely neutral about it. You probably have a god you identify with or just find really friggin cool. That's a fine and dandy place to start.

The working relationship need not be forever.

Which brings me to my next point. If you are absolutely undecided about what direction to go in, consider going to one of the liminal gods. Your crossroads gods, your messenger gods, often trickster gods. Your between spaces gods. Your portal opening gods.

In Santeria and Vodou, which I keep on referring back to because those are the systems I was raised in, your messenger gods get called very early on in the ritual. Why? To open the way for everybody else. There's a suggestion here that certain gods are closer or more easily reached, so if you want an opener—ask somebody with keys, yeah?

(also technically there's spirits called before then like the rhythm/dance/drums but let's not complicate things. Broadly speaking: key holding gods first)

Catholic saints wise, you've got Saint Peter, right? Santeria has Elegua. Vodou has Legba. Vodou also has the Baron as a crossroads god and yer liminal spaces god and sometimes he also has keys and hey by the way, he's really great, but where was I?

Hermes is another option. Mercury.

There's a bunch of American indigenous options I don't know enough about to confidently say.

SPEAKING of indigenous american, right, there's always Quetzalcoatl—technically—sky god, wind god, messenger god.

There's Odin and I'm actually a big fan, but the Norse magic community is often kind of garbage these days because we've got too many nazis running around, which is a shame.

My point is: there's gonna be somebody who feels close, either because of your cultural background or your aesthetic, and you might as well ask.

Settle down. Call their name. Offer water and a prayer and ask for protection, tell them what it is you want to do, ask for their help on this new life journey.

Worship isn't really complicated unless you want it to be.

Again, don't worry about "feeling" anything. Don't expect anything dramatic. Just offer something, every day or every week or whenever you have the time and headspace for it. Do the motions and mean it even a little bit and with time the rest shall come.

Because EVENTUALLY, you will feel something. It will probably be a mild sense of peace. The ritual feels calming. Something about it feels cozy. Presence is often subtle, but that counts.

Once you feel solidly good about your ritual, I would say that means you have at least some degree of protection, and it's time to wade around the swamp and see what's up. What do you do next? I dunno! I don't know what your goals are! But you have your ancestors at your back, or you're on a god team, or maybe BOTH—go explore!

Confidence isn't everything. But confidence, my friend, is a LOT. There's more to it, of course, but especially early on: fake it till you make it and dream it and you'll be it.

Best of luck, anon. <3

[sibilantly]

hi, sib. i sent you an ask about writing a while ago and you were super helpful, but i have found myself in yet another conundrum - i'm blocked. it took me some time to figure out why, and i'm pretty sure it's 'cause i'm supposed to be starting my mfa this fall and i'm just scared shitless. i'd really appreciate some advice on how to unblock the block. i just feel so useless right now. this nonsense in my head is honestly wearing me down.

You sent this several months ago, dear writing anon (as I now dub thee), and I’m terribly sorry I haven’t replied before now. RL got in the way of my online/fandom time again, but, more than that, I’ve been musing and reflecting on the situation you described, and I’ve only recently been able to marshall it all into semi-coherence. I assume you’ve started your MFA already (CONGRATULATIONS, BY THE WAY!), so all this navel-gazing and advice may be moot, but on the off-chance you’re still stymied, here’s my take and (for what it’s worth) my advice:

The thing about ‘writer’s block’ (air quotes), which you seem to have figured out already, is that it’s really emotional block. And the most common emotion is fear.

It’s not surprising, really, when you consider the fact that writing is both a craft and an art. (Well… alright, every art form is a combination of craft and art - of technical skill and vision - but we’re just going to focus on writing right now). And, just like every other art form, the very best writing requires self-expression. Think of your favourite authors, both published and in fandom. Could you ever mistake their writing for another author’s? I’m willing to bet my last dollar that your answer will be ‘no’.

However, self-expression also means baring yourself. It means producing a piece of writing that says, in effect, ‘this is what I think, this is what I feel - this is how I see the world, this is my perspective on this trope/theme/topic, this is me’, and putting it out there to be looked at and judged by strangers. Strangers who may then have all sorts of reactions and opinions - negative ones, even - about not just your work, but about you.

And for the vast majority of people (myself included), that is fucking terrifying on a visceral, lizard brain level. In prehistoric times (or… whenever… anthropology is not my strong suit), being rejected by others meant isolation, which in turn meant increased risk of starvation or death by megafauna. We’re not in prehistoric (or whatever) times anymore, but rejection and negative judgement still hurts and looms large in our psyches because… well, the lizard brain is a powerful motherfucker that has gotten our species this far. It’s like that douchebag in your social circle that you just can’t drop entirely because they’re handy/annoyingly right in certain situations.

Anyway.

I suppose what I’m trying to say is: take heart, writing anon. You’re in good and numerous company. This fear - this emotional block - you feel is common. It’s unbelievably common. I personally grapple with it every week. Like, literally every week. From a certain evolutionary perspective, you could even say the fear is reasonable (DEATH BY MEGAFAUNA).

…however, that perspective is severely unhelpful in motivating one to write, so let us acknowledge said perspective like it’s an acquaintance we’re on nodding terms with, and move on.

The fact of the matter is, we’re not in prehistoric-whatever times anymore. Rejection will not kill us, no matter what the lizard brain keeps shrieking. And while the lizard brain is powerful, it’s also primitively dumb. Which means we can trick it.

There is a reason why pretty much every notable book on the art and craft of writing will have a chapter or a section which says, essentially: half the battle is getting your arse in the chair.

It’s because, a great majority of the time, getting started really is the biggest hurdle. Once you’re actually slapping some words onto a page? It may be painful, it may present its own challenges, but it usually doesn’t require as much effort as just. Getting. Started.

As the number of days you spend not writing builds up, the act of writing - even the mere thought of it - becomes more and more psychologically loaded, more threatening to your sense of self. ‘YOU’RE GONNA BE REJECTED AND STARVE TO DEATH IN THE DESERT,’ says the lizard brain. The more rational part of your brain says, ‘You’ve spent all this time not writing. When you finally summon up the power to do so, by some act of God, it’s going to come out mediocre, at best, because you’re out of practice. Why bother?’

And, look– to be honest, rational brain will probably be right regarding your restart writing attempts coming out mediocre. But it’s wrong about it being pointless to start.

Because here is something else you should tell yourself: writing is not just the words you publish. It’s not even just the words you publish plus the words you wrote in draft and then killed because you realised they were darlings. It’s not even all those words and the time you spent brainstorming and outlining. It’s all those words plus that planning plus the emotional work you go through - in character and as yourself - to get those words and ideas out.

Don’t get down on yourself if you have only one hour to write and you spend fifty of those minutes psyching yourself up to write. Psyching yourself up to write is part of writing. You’re getting your arse in the chair.

So, sure, maybe on day one you’ll spend just ten minutes getting some words out. But on day two, when you sit down again, you’ll remember: I did this for ten minutes yesterday. I can do it again. It’s like a gradual stretching and strengthening of a muscle. You should– no, you need to take your time, because writing is a years-long (ideally, lifelong) journey. You’ll need to pace yourself accordingly.

I’m not saying it’s easy. I have spent years devising weird tricks, strategies, and schedules to fool my lizard brain into viewing the act of writing as non-threatening (and sometimes I still fail and will stop writing for a couple days). I know it’s not easy. But it’s doable - you just need to find the right set of tricks and strategies that will fool your lizard brain.

EVERYTHING THAT I, SIB, HAVE PERSONALLY DONE TO FOOL THE LIZARD BRAIN

1. Automate that shit - COME UP WITH A VERY, VERY SIMPLE PRE-WRITING ACTION

Okay, so at this point, you might be going, ‘Great, Sib, but how do I get myself to start?’

And I say: ‘Automate that shit’. You can make the initial action (usually the action that requires the most effort) more likely to happen by making it very, very simple.

For (a non-writing) example, I have a weird thing about dishes. I don’t like doing them. What I don’t mind doing, however, is clearing the dish rack. But what tends to happen is, once I’ve cleared the dish rack and find myself standing beside the sink, I think, ‘well, since I’m already here…’

That’s what you need to trigger with writing - that casual thought of, ‘well, since I’m already here…’. The point of the pre-writing action is to trick yourself (or, at least, your lizard brain) into perceiving writing as being so simple, so easy and non-threatening, it’d be almost silly to not do it. This is especially important if you haven’t written in so long that writing has come to resemble a nigh-insurmountable mountain or a time bomb strapped right against your heart and your sense of self-worth.

Even if you don’t do anything else that I suggest (seriously, you don’t have to, I’m just listing everything I’ve tried on the off-chance that it might work for you), I’d say this is the strategy to try. The whole point of it is that it should require almost no effort to perform. Why not do it?

My personal pre-writing action is fifteen minutes of free writing/journalling (‘I’m not writing, lizard brain, I’m just talking to myself’). You don’t have to do that. But whatever action you choose to go with, make sure it’s easy and flows on automatically to writing. The point isn’t to force yourself. If you’re forcing yourself, the action is too complicated. You’re removing the automaticity of the process, and the whole point is automaticity.

Examples of pre-writing actions you could do:

1. Sitting in your dedicated writing spot. Just sitting there. You don’t have to write. But since you’re already there…

2. Summarising the last scene/chapter you wrote. You don’t have to write anything new. But since you’ve already picked up that pen or typed out that sentence…

3. Making a cup of tea (or coffee or whatever) and thinking about your writing as it steeps. You don’t have to do anything with the idea you came up with. But since it’s already formed… ;)

I know it can be embarrassing to set your bar so ‘low’, because it feels like you’re admitting you’re incapable. But you’re not incapable. You’re just human. You have multiple responsibilities, coupled with limited time and limited resources, both physical and mental. You’re doing the best you can with the time, ability, and energy you have. No one can expect more of you than that. You, especially, should not expect more of yourself than that.

2. Grab a notebook or open a document, and DESCRIBE YOUR PROCRASTINATION BEHAVIOUR(S) IN SPECIFIC, OBSERVABLE TERMS. Don’t just say ‘I avoid writing’ - be specific (says Arthur).

For example, here are some things from my list:

I open up my WIP, stare at the cursor, and tap the page up/down/delete/backspace keys for thirty minutes

When my reminder alarm for writing goes off, I open up my WIP, then open tumblr in another browser

I do all the household chores when it’s time to write

3. Take that list of behaviours and WRITE DOWN AT LEAST ONE SPECIFIC, ACTIONABLE SOLUTION FOR EACH BEHAVIOUR. You may come up with more than one solution for each behaviour. It’s fine. Write all of them down.

Here is what I came up with for the above:

Staring at the cursor: 

Pull the page up/down and backspace keys off the keyboard (this didn’t work for me.)

 Free write for fifteen minutes before starting ‘real’ writing (which has, yes, become my pre-writing ritual. It works beautifully for me because, after 5-10 minutes, it tends to segue into ‘real writing’. As in, I’ll start off writing like I’m telling a friend about what should happen next in the story - complete with tangents and sentences full of ‘and then he’s like, you know, completely aghast’ - and then as I relax and get more into the story, I drift into draft prose and dialogue.)

Opening tumblr at the same time as my WIP:

Install Clear Focus on my phone and StayFocusd on all browsers, and put a strict limit on tumblr

Write longhand in a notebook and then transcribe (this is my go-to solution these days)

Doing household chores instead of writing:

Schedule writing time only after I finish all chores (this is a meh solution for me - I can always find new things to clean, if I’m really, really trying to avoid writing.)

Write one hour before bed/when exhausted (this is like the non-alcoholic version of the apocryphal Hemingway edict ‘write drunk, edit sober’. Exhaustion gives you all the benefits of writing without your conscious filter with none of the cirrhosis or other alcohol-related diseases!)

Stick these lists up wherever you tend to write. Now whenever you catch yourself engaging in one (or more) of these procrastination behaviours, you also have a solution (or solutions). Again, it will not necessarily be easy. But in knowing your bad habits and being prepared for them, you’re setting yourself up for a much better chance of success, and reducing the likelihood that you’ll slip down the procrastination shame spiral. The rest is the unglamorous process of trying, maybe failing, and then trying again.

4. On the cognition side of things, ASK YOURSELF: WHY DO YOU WANT TO WRITE?

Why, given all the frustration and fear and isolation (because writing is a bit of a lonely thing, at times), do you keep trying? Write every reason you have down, and be honest about it. No one is going to see this list but you.

The reason I suggest you do this is because there will be days (or weeks, or months) where it feels like all you’re doing is eking out paragraph after paragraph of dreck. It’ll feel awful. And if you don’t know why you’re writing - if you have no goal to set your sights upon, or no internal touchstone to remind you why you’re putting yourself through this - it’ll be so much more tempting to give up.

5. I’ve said this to you before, but I’ll say it again because if you’re anything like me (and I’m still riding on the assumption we’re at least a little alike, because every message you send me I’m like, ‘ah, man, yeah, I feel you, I feel you’), some advice requires repeating before it sinks in. Especially when the advice is unglamorous. So. SET YOURSELF A SMALL, ACHIEVABLE WRITING TARGET, be it a word count or a set amount of time each day.

And when I say small, I mean small. If writing 100 words a day feels uncomfortable, set your target at 50. If writing for one hour is exhausting, set your target at 30 minutes (or 15, like I did! :D).

ONE MORE THING

Writing requires discipline.

There is the discipline of sitting down and doing the work, every day, even if you’re not feeling it, of course. We’ve all heard that advice, and we’ve all (at some point or another) gotten royally pissed off at it.

But there is another sort of discipline, one that flows on from doing the work every day. In working through the fear, you teach yourself that these periods of mediocre writing or zero writing are temporary, just little halts in your overall writing journey. That’s a kind of discipline, too - training yourself to believe, heart and mind, that the fear will pass, and the words are always with you, even if they’re not coming out the way you want. It’s just going to take time. Be patient, and be kind to yourself (which I know can be hard).

You’re not useless. You’re not failing at anything by being afraid, because the fear - and learning to work through the fear - is as much a part of the writing process as getting the words down. And the value of writing for a writer is not in the finished result, not really. It’s in the act of creating, in being willing to start, to try. If you’re psyching yourself up to try, then hey. That’s half the battle already.

You can do it, anon! I’m still rooting for you!

(P.S.: You’re more than welcome to message me off anon using tumblr’s chat function

[scripttorture]

Your National Styles post is very helpful! I was wondering though if you could talk about what kinds of torture were common in pre-modern India? I don't have a specific time period in mind, I'm just after inspiration for a fantasy setting that's loosely inspired by India. Thanks.

This made me smile. Thank you Anon, any excuse to read more Indian history is a gift.

 I don’t have good sources for the entire sub-continent. Most of what I have focuses on the north. I’m also not 100% sure what you mean by pre-modern so I’m going to try to describe as much as I can, adding rough areas and time periods. That way you can pick and choose things that suit what you’re going for in your story. :)

 I’m not going to try with the Harappans. Partly because their writing system still hasn’t been deciphered but mostly because I intend to continue imagining they created an egalitarian utopia. Until such a time as some one finds proof of kingship or other crimes. We all have our stories we like to cling to.

 I actually started out with Keay’s India: A History (imaginative title isn’t it?) because the local library had it. It actually turned out to be a pretty good sign post for other sources.

 India has an incredibly rich history, but much of that history wasn’t written down until hundreds of years after the events took place. Which is something it has in common with most northern European countries, although most European countries have less thorough oral histories.

 India is quite interesting as a case study in the depth and accuracy of oral history. The presence of separate oral records for the same events and separate strands of written records- well it builds up an interesting picture. Apart from pure historical interest it’s also interesting to see what people remember, attempts to change records and how (with the right systems in place) oral history can be remarkably resistant to change.

 I digress.

 The point is Arthashastra is available in full online here. It’s a kind of guide to the organisation of a state. We don’t have exact dates for it (it was probably written by several people complied over quite a long period) but it’s probably mostly from roughly 200 AD. It is focused on the Mauryan empire dated as beginning in roughly 320 BC.

 It was pretty damned big. Conservative estimates have the empire stretching across the north of the Indian peninsula from ocean to ocean, from Pakistan, Punjab and Nepal all the way across into Bangladesh and south into Orissa and Maharashtra. Just looking at a global map, we’re talking conservatively of an area the size of France, Germany, Poland and Italy.

 The translation I’ve linked to has some issues that I can see from a casual read. For instance the references to ‘eunuchs’ were probably rendered in the original as a domination of tritiya-prakriti; literally ‘third kind’. The closest English translation is probably ‘queer’ as the term encompasses homosexual, bisexual, transgender, gender nonconforming and intersex people as well as people who can’t naturally conceive. Some of the subtleties in the original are probably lost in translation and there may well be references I’m missing.

 Now like most historical cultures the Mauryans tortured and tried to impose legal limits on torture. We know from modern analysis that legal restrictions on torture don’t work: torturers will always ignore them.

 So it’s highly unlikely that the tortures the Mauryans allowed by law were the only tortures that happened in the Mauryan empire. But we can be pretty confident that the tortures they listed as legal were used through their empire.

 Arthashastra describes torture as a punishment and torture as an attempt to force a suspect to confess. At the same time the text acknowledges that torture can force false confessions and appears to cite a named legal case where this happened.

 I feel it’s also worth stressing that the vast majority of punishments the text suggests are fines. Apparently in ancient India you could get fined for almost anything.

 Arthashastra’s description of tortures starts with a list of people who can not legally be tortured. Now torturers will generally ignore this but I feel it’s worth including for some cultural context:

 ‘Ignoramuses, youngsters, the aged, the afflicted, persons under intoxication, lunatics, persons suffering from hunger, thirst, or fatigue from journey, persons who have just taken more than enough of meal, persons who have confessed of their own accord (átmakásitam), and persons who are very weak,--none of these shall be subjected to torture.’

 ‘Those whose guilt is believed to be true shall be subjected to torture (áptadosham karma kárayet). But not women who are carrying or who have not passed a month after delivery.

 Torture of women shall be half of the prescribed standard. Or women with no exception may be subjected to the trial of cross-examination (vákyanuyogo vá).

 Those of Bráhman caste and learned in the Vedas as well as asceties shall only be subjected to espionage.

 Those who violate or cause to violate the above rules shall be punished with the first amercement. The same punishment shall be imposed in case of causing death to any one by torture.’

 Now I know this is a little dense so in case that’s not clear the second passage is saying that women should be tortured less then men and pregnant women or women who recently gave birth shouldn’t be tortured at all.

 The last paragraph states that the punishment for a torturer for violating the rules, or for killing someone while torturing them is a fine. And not a particularly steep one. (Based on modern research I’d say it’s unlikely these limits were enforced, consistently or at all).

 The text describes whipping, beating with canes, suspension and ‘water-tube’.

 It particularly talks about beating the thighs, palms of the hands, soles of the feet (I refer to this as falaka) and the knuckles.

 It states there are two kinds of suspension but doesn’t describe them. Most suspension tortures involve hanging a person by their arms in some manner, but not all. I honestly can’t tell from the text what sort of suspensions were used.

 ‘Water tube’ could mean- well a lot of things. It could mean pumping, which is forcing someone to swallow liquid until their internal organs are painfully swollen (often causing vomiting and diarrhoea). It could mean waterboarding. It could mean the ‘Chinese water torture’ (incredibly misleading name), continual dripping of water on to someone’s eyes, which is actually a form of sleep deprivation.

 There’s also this ‘the hands being joined so as to appear like a scorpion’ which sounds like a form of finger milking. That’s bindings around the hands or arms restricting circulation and causing the hands to swell painfully.

 The last three things acknowledged as torture in the text are these ‘burning one of the joints of a finger after the accused has been made to drink rice gruel; heating his body for a day after be has been made to drink oil; causing him to lie on coarse green grass for a night in winter.’

 I honestly haven’t a clue what the significance of the rice gruel might be in this context.

 The combination of drinking oil and heat sounds like a strange combination of tortures. Drinking oils can uh- basically give someone diarrhoea. Oil can also be flammable but I don’t think this is implying immolation. I think it might be indicating a combination of pumping, dehydration, starvation and a temperature torture.

 Because forcing a prisoner to drink something that would make them sick would quickly make them dehydrated. Subjecting them to extremely hot temperatures would then be even more painful and dangerous.

 The final description seems to a straightforward form of exposure. It’s exposing a victim to cold winter temperatures. The implication is that this also involves sleep deprivation. The ‘grass’ may or may not be significant. There are plenty of plants you wouldn’t want to lie down on for a night but I’m unsure whether the ‘coarse’ description indicates something that could cause pain.

 The text also describes beatings, branding the face (of Brahmans specifically) and amputation as punishments. It describes death by ‘torture’ but the particular torture is not specified. It describes capital punishment in general terms ie ‘those who commit this offence shall be put to death’. A few offences called for beheading specifically. It also describes the use of jails.

 The amputations I could find listed were: a finger, a hand, a nose, a leg, ears, male genitalia. There’s also a description of blinding by the application of chemicals.

 As a final note before we move on there’s an interesting passage on sudden death and signs to look for on a corpse that could indicate the cause of death. It’s pretty interesting as an example of how people conducted investigations into murders before we had forensic labs.

 You can probably assume Ashoka is broadly covered by what I’ve described. His ethical pronouncements including prohibits on torture but nothing suggests a complete and enforced ban on the practice so it’s likely to have continued under his rule.

 Now I tried to find some sources on the southern Indian empires, like the Chola but I couldn’t find anything I felt was a clear description of the criminal justice system. Similarly I didn’t find anything clear on the Sangam period.

 I’m honestly not sure if this is because sources don’t exist or because there are less translations from Tamil.

 There is a lot of Tamil poetry from the Sangam period that’s available in translation and touches on Tamil history and wars. These might well serve as a good source of inspiration but I don’t think they’re necessarily a good indication of common practice.

 I am, admittedly, making assumptions based on epic poetry from other countries. My impression though is that these kinds of literary pieces tend to record unusual practices rather than common ones. When they mention common ones they don’t always give the full context of what terms mean. So for instance the Norse Eddas describe several unusual (for the culture) methods of execution and torture, but references to more common ones are usually a word or two without explanation. The Eddas mention blood eagles but don’t actually tell us what they were. This kind of description seems common in the epic poetry I’ve read and as a result I’m assuming the Tamil poetry will be similar.

 The next thing I went to was a couple of Chinese sources recounting travels to India. These were from Buddhist pilgrims so remember that bias while readings their accounts.

 Faxian (Fa Hian) wrote an account that’s available in translation here. I only had a quick flick through but from what I can see it’s more useful for establishing the wider historical context of the countries and the religious climate at the time then it is figuring out ideas about justice and torture.

 The next thing that really stood out is the famous Record of Western Lands, the inspiration for The Journey West by a monk whose name is Romanised in about half a dozen different ways. Hsuan Tsang and Xuanzang seem to be the most popular renderings with the former used predominantly in Indian studies.

 Now the first volume is relatively easy to find but I’ve had difficulty getting access to the other 11.

 Hsuan Tsang periodically recounts stories of Indian history, some involving ideas of punishment, justice and torture. Now a lot of these probably don’t show common practice and some of them seem to have been misinterpreted by Hsuan Tsang (I think the account of voluntary castration is more likely to be describing a queer Indian identity then a punishment) but they’re useful nonetheless.

 Generally Hsuan Tsang seems to be confirming that the practices described in the Arthashastra were still in use while he was travelling. As well as fines he describes imprisonment and social shunning of criminals which may amount to isolation/solitary confinement.

 He describes amputations as punishment, of the nose, ear, hand or foot. He doesn’t describe castration as a punishment per say but it seems likely this continued even if it was rare.

 Hsuan Tsang claims that torture wasn’t used to force confessions but then describes torture being used to force people to plead when they ‘refuse to admit their unlawful activities ashamed of their faults’. Which sounds to me like torture used to force confessions and/or something analogous to the historical English custom of being ‘pressed to plead’ (ie people who refused to plead guilty or innocent were tortured until they pleaded one way or the other).

 The tortures described are a form of near (or likely actual) drowning by putting a person in a weighted sack and throwing them in a river. He also describes a burning torture using hot iron. The other descriptions in this section sound more like ways of divining a person’s alleged guilt and I’m going to ignore them.

 He describes blinding as a punishment. And also a vampire story that I wasn’t expecting.

 As we get into the 700s there’s increasing Arab contact, which at this point is mostly via traders and pirates. My initial notes include some questions about whether this is when falaka was introduced to India but going by the Arthashastra it seems likely falaka was in use long before the Arabs arrived. In fact the spread may have gone the other way.

 It’s also possible that Ancient India and Ancient Egypt both hit upon similar practices separately due to the simple nature of torture. I digress-

 Writings by Arab scholars and travellers about India start becoming more prominent from the 900s onwards. Most of these recount hostile encounters between Muslim forces and Hindu or Buddhist groups. The accounts are a lot less interested in the history and politics of the region then the Chinese travellers three or four hundred years earlier.

 The most easily available one is probably Chach Nama which was written in the 1200s-1300s and claims to be a translation of an earlier work on Arab conquests of Pakistan and north western India during the 800s. However- it’s accuracy on several points is disputed. A lot of people don’t think it’s a translation but an original work combining and re-imagining earlier historical documents. Some of the older accounts, such as those of Al Baladhuri and Al Biruni, contradict it.

 Personally I have slightly more faith in the accuracy of the Chinese accounts then the Chach Nama. I think it’s likely it was constructed to justify conflicts of the 1200s by creating a supposed historical basis for those conflicts. I think it also displays a vested interest in making conquered people appear uncivilised, a pattern that’s common in a lot of historical accounts of foreign countries by the people who conquered them.

 In light of that- I think Al Biruni’s A Critical Study of What India Says, Whether Accepted by Reason or Refused, a better bet. Especially since he seems to have been more interested in Indian society then Indian rulers. (Though take into account my personal biases here; I think Al Biruni is a nice example of how Islamic scholars influenced scientific and historical thought. I think our modern philosophy of science owes a lot to the ideas of truthfulness (al-haqq) Al Biruni and people like him championed. I’m going to own my academic admiration.)

 This looks like your best bet for an easily accessible copy.

 I feel like I should stress, having recommended a bunch of foreign scholars as sources on Indian history, that throughout this period we’re pretty sure Indians were writing their own histories. However not many of them have survived. That’s thought to be because of a combination of the climate and the way things were commonly recorded. The theory I see repeated is that Indians were commonly recording things by carving on wood. This almost invariably rotted away. Similar things have occurred in other countries as well: much of England’s early history literally went up in flames during the Great Fire of London when one of the principal libraries burned and Alexandria’s destruction is generally cited as the reason we don’t have a lot of important classical Greek works, like first hand accounts of Alexander’s conquests or say more Sappho.

 Aaaaand that was the point where my friends staged an intervention and the library demanded financial restitution for my kidnapping of their books.

 Spoil sports. The rest of this is from my general knowledge.

 European forces and settlements in India would probably have introduced more tortures. The Dutch regularly used waterboarding, but I can’t find any indication that this became common practice in India.

 However the British army’s combination of stress positions and exposure did. A punishment the British called ‘crucifixion’ was used throughout India. It involved tying the victim standing with their arms outstretched in a T shape in full sun.

 The stress position itself is incredibly painful, combined with the climate it was likely to cause dehydration and possibly heat stroke as well.

 I couldn’t find any other instances where it seemed like part of a European National Style had been adopted by Indians.

 I found historical references to murgha stress position in India, including an illustration from the early 1800s. I’m not sure how far back the usage goes but that could be because it was generally used against children. Punishments towards children are not generally recorded as torture historically and it can be difficult to trace their usage.

 I couldn’t find any historical references to pepper (putting irritating substances such as pepper or chilli into mucous membranes, eyes, nose, genitals etc). That doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t practiced historically. Again, this is a form of torture that seems to have been associated with abuse of women and children in the home, rather than legislative punishments.

 I think you could use both in a story set in historical India without it appearing out of place. It might not strictly be historically accurate but both would have been possible.

 Judging by the Arthashastra falaka has been in India for a very long time indeed. I couldn’t find enough sources to confidently state it was in continuous from the late BC until today- but virtually every period I could find records of torture in India for included falaka. I think it’s likely that it was used continuously; I can’t prove it.

 Blinding turns up continuously throughout India history as a punishment aimed at people of high social rank or power.

 I’ve read some accounts of burning people alive as a punishment, but these are from later on in Indian history; the 1700s and 1800s. The particular account that springs to mind is Farzana’s ordering a group of arsonists to be burnt alive. The context for this is that they set fire to a group of buildings housing women who lived in purdah and that if the fire hadn’t been put out these women would have burnt alive rather then leave the building. Farzana’s punishment was interpreted as ‘an eye for an eye’.

 I feel like I should probably also briefly mention ritual suicide. There are a lot of historical Indian accounts of people killing themselves rather then renouncing a particular principal. One of the things that shows up repeatedly is women killing themselves when their husbands die. Sometimes this appears to have been voluntary. In other cases it seems as though the women were given no reasonable choice.

 I don’t think this fits the modern legal definition of torture, but it’s certainly an abuse of human rights aimed particularly at women. Starvation, burning on the husband’s funeral pyre and being thrown off tall buildings are the methods I see cited most commonly.

 The position of women in India is- well it’s a couple of books worth of material in itself. And I’d like to stress going in to this that there are very few countries/cultures that treated women well historically. Keep in mind when I describe the position of women and Dalits that the position of women and slaves or ‘barbarians’ in Greece and Rome was not any better.

 There’s a long history in India of confining women and limiting who they can interact with. The Arthashastra describes curfews inflicted on women and recommends barring women from leaving the home without an escort. It also legally limits the people women can invite to their homes.

 In historical Indian society it seems as though- it looks to me as if it would have been very easy for family members to isolate individual women in conditions akin to solitary confinement. This would probably have been unusual but from what I can see of the law and custom it wouldn’t have been seen as illegal or immoral.

 I’ve seen recent pieces claiming that the caste system is a recent invention. But I find this difficult to believe when the caste system is repeatedly cited in historical sources before European colonialism reached India. It’s cited by Al Biruni, Hsuan Tsang and in the Arthashastra.

 Yes there are historical incidences of people taking up occupations that were associated with different castes. Indian farmers and merchants did become Kings. But showing there was some social mobility and that caste was more (or less) flexible at different periods of time isn’t the same as showing that people were in no way limited by their parentage.

 Al Biruni describes the treatment of Dalits as ‘untouchable’ and describes different castes eating and washing separately as well as society relegating Dalits to work that was deemed dirty or unsafe.

 The Arthashastra describes different punishments for different castes (analogous to Old English law ascribing different punishments to different social classes). Unsurprisingly the rulers and ‘pious’ men are usually let off with a fine, while the poorest and the Dalits are supposed to be maimed, tortured or killed for the same transgression.

 It’s more then possible that living conditions and treatment of people at different levels of society was- perhaps not legally torture but certainly inhumane. I can’t find any clear indication that Dalits were made to live separately in the past. But if they were, judging by how the sources say they were treated by law, it seems likely their living conditions would have been worse. They may have had poor access to water, food and adequate shelter.

 I feel it’s also worth noting that Rejali talks about law enforcement targeting these kinds of minority groups for torture as a punishment for social transgressions. Things like- homeless people daring to walk down the streets of a ‘good’ neighbourhood.

 This sort of behaviour is typical of torturers, even when it’s not supported by the law. It occurs today, and I see no reason why it wouldn’t happen in a hierarchical historical society.

 Slavery was present in India. I can’t say for certain that it was present throughout all of Indian history, and it certainly does not seem to be as prevalent as it was in Greece or Rome but it occurred. I’ve seen more accounts of it in the Mughal period then prior to that but this might be due to better record keeping.

 Many of the Black Indian groups around today are descended from freed or escaped slaves brought to India by Arab traders. Beyond that I don’t know much about slavery in historical India. I’m unaware of any one particular industry slaves were funnelled into or of particular punishments (alla the bleeding Romans-).

 If you’re thinking of using slavery in your story I’d suggest sticking to the most common global tortures used against enslaved people: starvation, exposure, lack of medical treatment, beatings, dehydration and over work.

 From what I’ve read I’d say that India generally fits in with my pet theory about changing torture practices over time. I think that it’s only relatively recently that people have thought of torture as primarily a way to ‘get the truth’ (see here for why this idea is bullshit).

 What I’m interpreting from these sources is that in India, like most of the world, torture was used as a punishment, people were sentenced to it. It was also used to force confessions. And although there was an idea that torture could be used to find the truth, this was not seen as it’s primary purpose.

 And I think that’s probably where I’m going to have to leave this. At four thousand words it’s actually shorter/less detailed then I’d hoped. I blame my mates for insisting I have a social life.

 I think it should be enough to get you started though. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

(1) i'm writing a story about a kid (under 13, havent decided exactly how young), who undergoes a horrible though mostly unintended period of psychological torture, set in northern Russia in the 13th-14th century. They're the youngest child of the local Lord, and their town gets invaded. Once the dust has settled, their family is brought up on a stage and all the commoners and servants are made to watch in silence as the family is tortured via slow dismemberment, then killed.

(2) The child is basically in a position where they have to serve the people that did this and maintain their disguise, or they will have the same done to them. At one point they are accused of theft and are given the punishment of that time and place- cutting off a finger. Beyond that there's no direct, intentional physical harm done to them. After several years, the invading force leaves and it becomes safe for the surviving child to come out of hiding.(3) What sort of effects could i expect them to have after the torture and trauma? Currently I have them as being so afraid of speaking giving away their identity that they've gotten selective muteness, and once it becomes safe to come out of hiding giving up their former title due to fear of becoming a target. I'm looking for stuff both during the ongoing trauma and afterwards, and i want to do it justice!

Thisall sounds possible.

Idon’t know anything about Russia during that period so I can’tcomment on whether these particular attacks fit the place and period.

Ialso don’t know much about childhood development. The majority ofthe accounts I have are from adults. And while the same symptomseffect children and adults the expression of those symptoms can bedifferent.

ScriptTraumaSurvivorshas a post here on age appropriate expression of trauma symptoms.

GenerallyI tend to stress that witnessing traumatic events doesn’t alwayscause trauma symptoms, but given all the other circumstancessurrounding this I think you’re right, it’s highly likely thischaracter would be extremely traumatised. They’ve lost theirfamily, witnessed horrible things and lived for years in a constantstate of fear and threat. Long term psychological effects areextremely likely.

I’dsuggest you don’t refer to that as psychological torture becausewell- that’s a phrase a lot of torture apologists tend to use torefer to things like starvation, sleep deprivation and stresspositions, which leave no obvious external scars but do cause a lotof physical damage. It’s a phrase that tends to get used to dismissor belittle physical tortures by implying they’re ‘only’psychological.

Iunderstand why that’s the phrase you reached for here though and Idon’t think you’re downplaying what the character goes through.Just- be aware of how that phrase is often used.

Iget asked about muteness or refusing to talk sporadically. Thereisn’t really a way to purposefully inflict it and from everythingI’ve read it seems to be a rare symptom. But you do occasionallyget survivors who stop talking for a period of time. And the wayyou’re describing this it seems as though you’re treating hisrefusal to talk is part of an underlying set of symptoms rather thanthe symptom itself. Which I think works.

I’malso getting the impression that you approach writing symptoms quitedifferently to the way I do. There’s absolutely nothing wrong withthat: we all have different ways of writing and I honestly think themost unhelpful writing advice is the sort which sets out to changehow someone writes.

Rightnow you’ve got a set of behaviours but not necessarily an explicitset of symptoms.

Nowyou don’t necessarily needto come up with an explicit set of symptoms to do this justice, butit might help guide you through how the character’s mental healthproblems change with time.

Atthe moment it sounds as though the main mental illness you’reportraying is anxiety (though you could possibly also write whatyou’re describing as hypervigilance or depression). That in turn isleading to social isolation as the character avoids or cuts himselfoff from other people.

Ithink that’s a pretty good starting point. The symptoms have beentied to both the character and each other in a way that feelsnatural.

Myinstinct is that given everything going on here another underlyingmental health problem might be a good idea. Given the character’sage, the setting and the other symptoms I think insomnia, learningdifficulties or memory problems could all work well.

Insomniaexacerbates pre-existing mental health problems and you could usenightmares as a way of tying this to the other symptoms.

Learningdifficulties would probably be a little more subtle as they might bedismissed as inexperience or a product of the character’s age butthat subtlety could also make them easy to work into the story. Theother symptoms clearly establish that the character hasserious long term symptoms and that means you have space to includeless ‘obvious’ ones.

Irecommend memory problems pretty often because they’re incrediblycommon in real life but rarely depicted well in fiction. They’realso often not acknowledged in the real world, despite having amassive impact on survivors’ lives.

I’vegot a Masterpost on the most common types and how they work here.

Giventhe story you’re telling I don’t think memory loss orinaccurate/false memories would be a good fit.

Butforgetfulness might well be: the character could easily use that asanother ‘reason’ why he ‘has’ to step down, believing himselfto be incapable or unsuitable. Intrusive memories could also be avery good fit and could feed in to his other symptoms. Writing wisethere’s the ‘danger’ of including too many flash backs toparticular awful moments, robbing these moments of their power. Butthis can be overcome quite easily by stressing the feelings thememory evokes rather than the details of the moment in itself.

Loopingback to the main part of the question- The ‘right’ way to handleany of this going forward is going to depend on the story.

Whilethe character is still in danger there may well be worse moments andbetter moments but he’s not going to make any real progress towardshealing while he’s still effectively a prisoner. This doesn’tnecessarily mean his symptoms will be constantly getting worse. Itwould be perfectly normal for them to reach a point and plateau.

Recoveryafterwards isn’t something survivors do in isolation. He’d need asupport network which he currently doesn’t seem to have. That couldmean that part of his recovery process is buildingtrusting and healthy relationships with others.

Giventhe time period and place the church could play quite a large role inhis recovery. Priests, monks, nuns (and anchoresses but I’m unsureif Russia had them) all played roles in communal mental health. NowI’m sure the quality of this help varied widely from place to placeand person to person but there’s nothing wrong with you choosingthat your character has access to better quality help.

Hislack of support network means that recovery would take longer andthere’d probably be a period where he’s at quite high risk ofharm. That doesn’t necessarily mean attack by others or self harm.Severe mental illnesses can make it difficult for a person to takecare of themselves.

Forinstance he might have days when he’d rather go hungry or cold thengo out among other people and get food or firewood. That’s the kindof time when having a support network is a huge material help.Linking back to the church idea I think it could be plausible to havelocal religious figures attempt to help in this kind of practicalway, leaving food or firewood. Other characters close to the survivorcould also fill this kind of role.

Recoveryis slow and it is rarely linear. Even if someone is generally gettingbetter they can still have incredibly bad days or weeks.

Andas people recover they often find that aspects of their mentalillness seem to change. For instance if someone has severe depressionit’s not uncommon for them to start feeling more anxious/overemotional as the depression eases.

That’spart of why I think trying to figure out the underlying illnessbehind these behaviours is helpful. It can give you an idea of how tohave those behaviours change in ways that are organic and realistic.

Goingwith the idea that the character’s major illness is anxiety- Thephysical symptoms can include shaking, nausea, heart palpitations,chest pain and generally feeling like you’re having an adrenalinerush most of the time.

Somepeople have speech difficulties when they’re having an anxietyattack. That can include difficulty taking in what people are sayingand difficulty communicating clearly (though it doesn’t stopspeech). Things like repeating the same short answer a couple oftimes. Sometimes it means giving a reflexive ‘answer that will getrid of the person’ rather than an accurate answer.

Anxietycan drive people to withdraw from others, especially if their anxietyis triggered by others. Things like stepping away from people duringconversation and struggling with crowds or confined spaces canhappen.

Itcan also be difficult to sleep, which in turn makes other symptomsworse.

Depressioncan make people feel tired all the time, while also making itdifficult to fall asleep or sleep well. It can make eating difficult.It tends to mute sensation and can leave people feeling numb.

Itcan get in the way of positive interaction with other people indifferent ways. One of the things I hear people describing most oftenis difficulty engaging. When all of someone’s emotional energy isgoing on holding themselves together sparing some for other people isincredibly difficult.

Ihave a post about solitary confinement that may help you get a graspon the effects of isolation. Keep in mind that solitaryconfinement is much more extreme then the vast majority of cases ofsocial isolation. The effects on your character probably wouldn’tbe this bad. But it could help give you an idea of the way this kindof isolation effects people and how it feels.

Itend to approach recovery quite organically. For me it’s anextension of both the character and their symptoms- the logicalconclusion of the situation the story posits. But that’s because Itend to write symptoms in a way that’s very rooted in the characterand I tend to write very instinctually.

Ifyou’ve got a more analytical approach then breaking symptoms downmight help.

Onceyou know what conditions the character has (rather than just thebehaviours) you can start to tie those behaviours to particularaspects of his mental illnesses. That in turn helps you figure outhow he might recover.

Let’stake his difficulty speaking for a moment and assume that the rootcause of that is anxiety. He probably knows that ‘fear’ is thecause of this. He probably feels less afraid on a daily basis afterthe invading force leaves. And that could lead to him finding it alittle easier to speak again.

Buthe might not understand why he keeps getting chest pains. Or why hefeels ‘afraid’ when in a crowd of people he knows are ‘harmless’.

Ifhe, and everyone else, focused on the biggested most obviousbehavioural problems he had then there’s likely a lot of thingsthat slipped under the radar. That were too small to comment on atthe time or that everyone assumed would stop when the invaders left.This can be a pretty effective way to approach how symptoms canchange and how it can catch a character off guard.

Anotherapproach is thinking about what a character currently can’tdo and when in the story they needto do that particular thing. Then think about what needs to change,environmentally or emotionally, for the character to be capable ofthat action.

Sometimesyou can only really get them half-way there and then find yourselfputting together a creative work-around. That’s OK. That can add toa story and be an interesting break from typical tropes.

Recoveryis a slow process of learning to deal with symptoms in healthierways. And incidentally virtually every mentally ill person I’veknown has had moments of expressing things like ‘But I should beover this’ ‘But I should be able to deal with this’ ‘But Ishould be better by now’.

Fromthe sounds of things you’ve put a lot of thought into both thecharacter and that process already. You are doing a good job. Keep atit and I think you’ll have an excellent story.

Ihope this helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

I'm working on this story and wanted your opinion. One of my characters is tortured and about to die when he is saved. My worry is that in order to save him, another character is going to use a forbidden magic to heal him. He will still have all the memories and I plan on showing the mental toll, but is it an issue that he will physically be fine and not go through healing? It's a big component of my story that the character who saves him gets in trouble for using the forbidden magic. Thanks!

PersonallyI don't see an issue with having a character make a full physicalrecovery when that would have been impossible in a realistic world.It's a fantasy story and that healing is clearly magic based so Idon't think it's going to create any sort of unrealistic expectationin readers about what people can survive. You're also making it veryclear that the character would have died without intervention. Thefact this is 'forbidden' and a character breaks that taboo serves tounderline the seriousness of the situation.

Thereare a few things that come to mind if this is something you want todo but I don't think they're problems so much as… things that wouldprobably help you get a better grasp of how this situation might workand the kind of effect it might have on the characters.

Mostpeople globally expect torture to lead to scars. And the implicationin this ask is that torture here was scarring. That it was obvious.That prior to healing anyone could have glanced at the survivorcharacter and been able to tell he was attacked.

Thething is- most modern torture doesn't leave obvious lasting marks. Irefer to this as 'clean' torture (this is the term Rejali uses).And because of the assumptions people have, that torture 'should' or'must' leave scars, well it can result in a lot of problems fortorture survivors.

Oneof the main problems they face is people questioning whethersurvivors were tortured at all. The lack of obvious marks on theirbodies is taken as a sort of 'proof' that torture couldn't haveoccurred. They're subjected to a level of scrutiny and victim-blamingthat survivors with scars don't really face as often. Common patternsinclude accusations that the survivor is making things up, thataccusations are motivated by politics, that 'something' happened butit wasn't as bad as the survivor says or wasn't 'really torture'.

Survivorswithout scars, the vast majority of torture survivors today, areasked to 'prove' what happened to them with reference to marks ontheir bodies that simply don't exist.

There'ssomehow an assumption that a lack of external scarring means anattack was less damaging, less painful and…. less of a crime.

Allof which seems pretty relevant to this question.

Theway this is constructed means that the survivors character wouldprobably find it a lot more difficult to talk to people generallyabout what happened to him. It would likely be more difficult for himto access the support he needs.

Thehealer saved his life, but they've also put him in a very difficultposition. He can't talk about what he experienced to most people inan open honest way. The wounds he'd describe 'should' have killedhim, combined with a lack of scarring that would make many peopledoubt his story. And he can't explain that lack of scarring withoutadmitting that the healer, who saved him, did something taboo. So thecharacter is left with a choice where talking openly means punishingthe person who saved his life.

That'sa pretty big burden to carry. And if this setting has any sort ofofficial care (therapists, centres or charities designed to helpsurvivors) it might well cut him off from accessing them. Most of thepeople on the ground interacting with survivors wouldn't turn someoneaway because of a lack of scarring, but groups that rely ongovernment funding (or the funding of any other big institution) aresometimes left in a position where survivors are blocked from accessuntil their case is 'proven'.

Beyondthat I think the main thing here is to make sure you do show thischaracter's psychological symptoms, otherwise you could end upinadvertently supporting the idea that this attack was 'lessharmful'.

I'vegot a list of the most common symptoms here and I tend torecommend authors choose 3-5 symptoms for survivors.

Someof these symptoms are effected by physical injuries. For instancechronic pain can have a physical cause or component and substanceaddiction or insomnia can occur in response to chronic pain. Chronicpain in survivors can also be entirely psychological, or have aphysical component unrelated to injuries. When you're pickingsymptoms for your character you might want to think about how farthis healing magic goes: is it addressing all injuries or just theones that the healer is aware of? It could heal all the obvious, lifethreatening injuries and still leave enough 'minor' muscle damage tocause chronic pain.

Nothingon the list springs out to me particularly as adding to the story youwant to tell. I tend to suggest authors pick symptoms based on whatthey think will add to the story. Symptoms that create opportunitiesto show the readers something about the character or createinteresting obstacles in the plot or just tie in with the generalthemes of the story.

Memoryproblems in torture survivors don't generally mean that they forgetthey were tortured. Instead you get four general classes of memoryproblem; a sort of general forgetfulness or difficulty retaininginformation which can make every day life incredibly difficult,intrusive memories which are like being very strongly reminded ofbeing tortured constantly by innocent every day events, falsememories which are generally flaws in memories surrounding trauma andmemory loss.

Falsememories aren't completely imagined or completely seperated fromreality. What they tend to be like instead is- say your character wastortured over six days in a particular room. The character mightclearly remember that the door was on the left side of the room, whenin fact it's on the right. They might clearly remember say- thetorturer with the big beard doing something on the first day. When infact that torturer didn't show up until day three. These memoryproblems don't generally have a massive effect on a survivor'sability to live every day, but they do have a massive effect on legalproceedings. The fact that these problems are so common makes tortureincredibly hard to prove. Even without systematic legal investigationthese problems can make people around the survivor doubt thesurvivor's version of events. And that can be incredibly damaging forthe survivor.

Memoryloss caused by torture is quite a long way from the typical saturdaymorning cartoon amnesia that usually gets connected with the idea.The majority of torture survivors don't forget being tortured, infact intrusive memories of torture seem to be more common thenforgetting it. They also don't forget who they are or people they'reextremely close to. As a general rule the older the memory the'safer' it is from the damage torture inflicts. So survivors don'tforget their childhoods, families or the spouse they've been marriedto for ten years. They do forget more recent memories. So if thischaracter was snatched off the street it would be perfectlybelievable that he'd forget what street he was on when he wassnatched, or where he was going that night. Anything in the two orthree weeks prior to torture and the same period afterwards couldrealistically vanish.

Now,memory problems might still not be a good fit for your story, that'sperfectly fine. But if you were imagining that they meant thecharacter would forget about being tortured, or vital aspects of hispast, that's highly unlikely. You can still include memory problemsin your story, if you want to.

Ihope that helps. :)

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

Hey, I've got a character for a little novella that's pretty thoroughly tortured using forced drug abuse and whatnot, but I've been toying with the idea of having his eyes stitched shut for sensory deprivation purposes. Any thoughts on long-term effects of a few months with your eyes sewn shut? Psychological or physical, I'm just not finding a lot out there about that SPECIFIC torture given (I imagine) how excessive and 'extra' it is when there are other methods.

To be honest I’d generally suggest changing to torture methods that aremore commonly used.

 Torturers do experimentoccasionally but more often- they’re creatures of habit. They tend to do moreor less exactly the same thing to everyone they encounter. That allows us tobuild up torture trials and it allows Rejali to describe ‘NationalStyles’.

 Forced drug abuse is very very rare in a torture context. That’s partlybecause it is easy to test someonefor drugs, partly because of expense, and partly because it’s often moredifficult to force someone to take a drug than use another method. In mostplaces where torture occurs drugs are not hugely readily available and theirpresence would need to be explained.

 I generally suggest that people don’tuse this because it’s used so often in fiction and (outside of people smugglinggangs) it’s rarely used in reality.

 Sewingsomeone’s eyes shut isn’t sensory deprivation.To meet the definition more than one sense has to be restricted. Sensorydeprivation generally masks or removes at least four senses; sight, sound, touch and smell. This is next toimpossible to do without a purpose built set up and it is almost non-existent in reality.

 Which is a good thing because sensory deprivation is so hugely damagingthat depending on the method the ‘safe’ time period is probably somewherebetween 24 hours and three. Sensorydeprivation for more than one day is extreme.The longest recorded period of sensory deprivation a victim has survived is 35days.

 Victims of sensory deprivation for extreme periods of time also suffermuch more severe effects than virtually any other torture. Follow up studies ona small group who’d been experimented on found memory loss in 60% ofsurvivors that ranged from six months toten years worth of missing memories. Some of the survivors had lost theability to recognise faces and ordinary objects. Three quarters essentiallycouldn’t socialise with others. The vast majority were hospitalised.

 There’s also never been arecorded case of sensory deprivation being used to torture. It has been used in unethical experimentsbut the number of experiments and victims was small.

 This has never been common, it’s not what you’re describing in your askand honestly it’s best avoided.

 As for sewing someone’s eyes shut-

 I’ve never heard of thathappening in a torture case. Scarring tortures are rare now generally butsomething that obvious- I’m having to trouble thinking of anywhere it could happen.

 In every country I can think of where scarring torture still occurs italmost certainly wouldn’t happenbecause if the torturers wanted to blind their victim they wouldn’t worry aboutdoing it temporarily. They’d just attack the eyes.

 And well- in the minority of places where scarring torture still occursit looks completely different to what you’ve outlined.

 We’re not talking drugs andfiddly things that might possibly be fixed one day. We’re talking shatteredbones and pulled teeth and extensive burns. Hell in parts of Nigeria one of thecommon occurrences is shooting someone in the leg or the hand.

 Basically torturers either care about being found out (and hence makesure the victim won’t show anyobvious signs of abuse) or they don’t. And if they don’t then there’s no reasonfor them to take precautions.

 Sewing someone’s eyes shut is more complicated than cutting them out andboth are obvious and scarring. If a torturer doesn’t need to worry about scarsI really see no reason why they’d be worried about whether or not the victimmight recover their eyesight later.

 To me this seems a little…confused because it almost seems to beimplying that the torturers care about the victim’s long term survival andability to recover. In which case why are they torturing at all? If they wantto keep their prisoner alive and non-disabled torture would go against thoseaims.

 I’d strongly suggest re-thinking this. Both in terms of the torturetechniques used and in terms ofthrowing around things like ‘sensory deprivation’ when that’s not what you’redescribing. Because at the moment what you’ve picked is a very long way fromreality.

 Having said all of that- there’s nothing in what you’ve written whichsuggests torture apologia to me. And I do know somewhere you might be able tofind out more about eyes being sewn shut.

 I haven’t seen it in torture cases but I have seen it in protests. Refugees and asylum seekers in Australianand British detention centres have sewnboth their lips andeyes shut at various points in protest at their treatment. These sources contain pictures.

 Sewing up the mouth appears to be more common, presumably because it isless risky.

 The practice usually seems to be accompanied by hunger strikes andthreats of self harm or suicide, sometimes by self immolation. It’s a desperate,last ditch attempt to get someone in authority to pay attention to the protest,often when the individuals involved seem to have lost all hope of survival.

 I’ve also heard of it being used occasionally in some groups that practice forms of body modification for spiritual purposes. I don’t have a deep understanding of these groups or their religions so I’m going to leave that there. 

I’ve never heard of someone having their eyes sewn shut for such anextended period of time as you’re planning. Most of the accounts I’ve seendescribe days, perhaps a week. I’m not sure it would be possible to have acharacter’s eyes sewn shut for months and recover eye sight later. Which seemsto go against the presumed purpose of sewing the character’s eyes shut in thefirst place.

 I couldn’t find an extensive list of side effects so what follows is mybest guess based on my knowledge and what I did find.

 Infections of the eyelid, tear ducts and cornea all seem extremelylikely. Damage to the surface of the eye seems extremely likely, possibly tothe extent that it could be described as scarred.

 It would impair the ability to remove contamination from the eye surfaceand it’s likely the stitching itself would introduce contamination andirritants. The entire eye could swell up for a variety of reasons (unable toremove irritants, infection).

 Beyond that I’m not sure. My level of medical knowledge isn’t reallygood enough for me to be sure what else this might do. Losing both eyes toinfection seems very likely though.

 As for psychological effects those do not generally depend on the typeof torture technique used. Youcan find out more about them here.

 I hope that helps. :)

Disclaimer