#like the fact that the rules are so vague and inconsistent is why i included the '' can they have a normal government'' option

[stairset]

Love the people questioning if we're going by elder wand rules on my darksaber poll like guys how the fuck am I supposed to know that's why I made it. That's the joke. That the writers themselves can't make up their mind on that. Lucas and Filoni made the Mandalore episodes in TCW and Lucas was presumably just like "give the Mandalorian leader a black lightsaber" cause it's cool so they just say Pre Vizsla's ancestors stole it from the Jedi temple during the Old Republic era and Lucas probably didn't think too hard about it beyond that and that was literally the only backstory it got until like 7 years later in Rebels season 3 where they established that it's Mandalorian Excalibur and now it's a mess. Maul officially initiates a challenge and wins it and then gets defeated multiple times but retains ownership of it implying you have to actually initiate a challenge first, then Sabine just steals it then Gar Saxon steals it and she kicks his ass and takes it back and gives it to Bo-Katan implying that they're dropping the "win it in combat" angle altogether, then Din beats Gideon without even knowing anything about it and suddenly the "win it in combat" rule matters again. The rules are whatever the fuck they need to be for the current story. Welcome to Star Wars.

[zeroducks-2]

I have a confession: I kinda don't get people who LOVE characters like Stephanie, Duke or Jean Paul. Like,,, they are so boring and there's nothing interesting about them??? Made only to be a self-insert for readers?? Also, there are fans ready to literally tear you apart when you 1) don't consider Duke to be a member of the batfam and 2) don't mention Stephanie when you talk about The Four Robins. Which makes it even more crazy bc gurl,, you really that butthurted over a character as shallow as Bella from Twilight...?

It took me some time to decide how to go about answering this ask, because first and foremost I want to confirm that yes, it is unfair and gatekeepy to nag at people when "they don't consider Duke a member of the Batfamily", or if they don't mention Stephanie when one talks about The Four Robins.

First of all not everyone has read every DC story ever - I surely did not - and on the contrary, I suspect that the majority of casual DC fans don't even know about Jason, Tim and Damian, assuming there's just one Batman and one Robin (who they don't really know is even named Dick Grayson). Hell, when I read Under The Red Hood for the first time (and I did as it came out!), I had NO IDEA who Jason Todd was. I had read random ass comicbooks up to that point and I just assumed that there were "other Robins" after Dick went on to become Nightwing, but in a vague and non-contextualized way.

It's as simple as many people not knowing that Stephanie and Duke even exist (or they just saw them once in a fanart) because maybe they just read some random comics without any real context, or because they have been focused on the JLA and just recently got into Batman stuff, because they only know the "Batfam" through Young Justice, or for a number of other reasons. It's not on them to be knowledgeable on every single facet of the Batman lore, and no one should expect from a fan to just know ALL the characters like the back of their hands, and include them in the "batfam" scenarios always and all the time (also because one of the reason why people often don't know about Cass, Steph and Duke is because DC does not push them. Finding stories with these characters gets increasingly more difficult every year, thank fuck people don't know them). Or maybe they have read comicbooks with Stephanie and Duke and they decided they dislike them, which is also a totally fair reason not to include them in their art or whatever.

And to be honest, if we wanted to be coherent then we should fuss also with those who don't include Carrie Kelley among the Robins, but no one does that because Carrie isn't famous enough for people to whine about an "all Robins fanart" which doesn't include her (I personally don't care about Carrie, I'm saying this just to point out the hypocrisy).

It's as it usually goes. You want art with "all the Robins"? Pick up a pencil and draw it or commission an artist. You want comedy skits in written form, or mock-twitter posts or whatever to include Stephanie and Duke? Sit down, think of something funny and do it yourself, or again commission someone. Fan-creators aren't there to fulfill your needs about this or that aspect of a fandom, and there is not one single valid reason to harass them about it.

This though is completely unrelated to the fact that Stephanie, Duke and whoever else might be "bad characters" that you personally dislike. People like characters for an array of different reasons, even when these characters are shallow, inconsistent, not created according to the proper rules of characterization and narrative arcs. Sometimes the reason why people love a character is exactly because they are written to be as self-insert, but it can be literally anything and that is OK. It will often be reasons we don't understand or we disagree with, and that too is OK.

To name one, I personally have no idea how anyone who's older than 12 can genuinely enjoy a Harry Potter book, and I've been saying this since I was 13 myself (so around 15 years before JKR outed herself as a misogynistic piece of shit), but it is what it is - a lot of people like things that I don't enjoy and for reasons I don't understand, and I myself have learned to be OK with it a long time ago.

And let's be clear, I could very well make the case that Batman is a hyper-masculine macho fantasy with nothing to offer to the plot of a story. Or that Tim is a useless filler of a character without anything new to add to the narrative. Or that Dick is a repetitive, whiny bimbo whose plot-lines are always the same. And I LOVE those characters to BITS, they are my precious blorbos and I rather defend them tooth and nail against anyone who dares speak ill of them, but the truth is that criticizing a character is easy.

Take one flaw and make it bigger than any good thing about them, you can paint the most awful picture ever and you wouldn't even be wrong from your personal point of view. None of them is objectively perfect or even close to a narrative masterpiece, so go ahead and keep disliking Stephanie and Duke and Jean Luc, and whoever else doesn't tickle your fancy, but my suggestions is to stop focusing on "how is it even possible that people like them" because there will always be that one character you hate that people can't stop pouring love over. It is pretty much always best to shrug and move along when you see something you dislike, and instead spend your energy on the characters and stories you do like instead, and which make you have blorbo thoughts and butterflies in your stomach and whatever else makes you happy.

And if anyone who's reading this is someone who harasses people for not including Duke and Steph in the group fanarts - please don't. Leave artists be. You want that Robin!Steph artwork, go ahead and draw it yourself or pay for a commission, and stop being an ass to people because they didn't do the thing exactly as you wanted them to do it.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Conservatives in government propose laws that would keep LGBTQ from living their lives the way they want.

That certainly is vague and non-specific.

The biggest controvesies about LGBT folks in the past few years have all involved LGBT folks allegedly "forcing" their beliefs on impressionable kids.

Kids who already receive special protection in every society. In fact, the mainstream left's stance on the issue has also been trying to protect kids. Same basic motive, different beliefs.

Conservative stances have included things like "(my) tax money should not pay to expose (my) kids to inappropriate sexual content".

And, of course, none of this actually defends your earlier post. You falsely equated "conservates want to leave LGBT folks alone if those folks leave conservatives alone" with "conservatives fully support LGBT folks, notmatter what they do".

Which would include LGBT folks who try to force themselves on others.

Your being left alone there made it easier for your actions to kill others, therefore YOU were not leaving others alone. That's the problem with folks like you. You only think of how others affect you, not how you affect others

"It's okay when WE do it!"

Is that why governments around the world enforced the rules on people who were walking around in public with nobody nearby? Like folks who went to empty beaches?

In fact, getting exercise actually reduces one's risk from COVID.

Also, I'm not an American. Or conservative. I followed all The Rules where I live.

Also BLM began in 2013. You're maybe thinking of the George Floyd protests, which were part of the movement

It's cute how you're trying score points by nitpicking. And doing it so poorly.

Yes, when I said "BLM", I included the height of the movement's visibility and power. As almost anyone would understand in context, unless they were actively trying not to.

Or, y'know, were an idiot.

Of course, you have to go hard on a few incidental words, to try and look like an actual response, because you completely ignored my actual main point about the US left's inconsistent standards, and it's support of gun control and censorship at the highest levels.

What a shock.

Well I'm sure that 9% is the driving force behind the American conservative movement

Considering how wrong you've been about everything else - and are acting like non-Christian faiths don't count as "religious" - you can't just make up assumptions and act like it's Holy Writ.

Especially since you haven't backed up anything you've said, or actually proven that you're not stereotyping Christians.

And you explicitly said "all about converting people". You're the one who has to prove every single religious conservative wants to convert others.

And even then, mainstream Christian doctrine has stressed that conversion has to be voluntary for longer than either of us has been alive. Talking people into doing something is not the same as forcing them.

It's also generally sold on benefit to the convertee, not "if you don't do it it doesn't count".

I also doubt that left-wing Christians would be much different.

[ladylynse]

So I just finished marathoning BBC Merlin recently and I'm craaaving a DP crossover. I think I saw you mention you had the idea for one before? Maybe??? Or maybe it was a 3 sentence prompt? Either way, if you had an idea for one I'd love to hear you talk more about it? If not, I'd love to hear a musing :D You have the best ideas. Thanks in advance, have a nice day/night!

You're thinking of this post. *grins* I try to collect that kind of thing on this post, but sometimes I forget to link it, so even if you vaguely remember seeing something, there's no guarantee it's on there when it should be. I haven't done a three sentence fic with that crossover, so feel free to drop me a prompt or two if you want one.

There are fic possibilities beyond what I talked about in the first post, of course, even without setting it in the present where Merlin hears what's going on in North America, specifically Amity Park, so here's another one. (I'm coming up with it on the fly, so apologies if there's more inconsistencies than usual.)

Given the time period, a fic could be set at a time when Dora and Aragon are alive. And cursed. Dealing with that whole backstory. If I were bringing more DP characters into the story like that, I'd be tempted to set the story after the Merlin series ended, when Merlin can be off avoiding thinking about what happened and run right into trouble that a dragonlord is uniquely suited to deal with.

Failing that, I'd set it in my comfy S4-S5 spot, where they're out following up on rumours of Morgana and magical activity (Arthur would believe they were linked even if they weren't) that Arthur shouldn't be tracking for safety reasons but he is because he's Arthur, and Merlin isn't as keen to laugh off the stories Gwaine brings back from the local pub about sorcery that can transform people into dragons. Transformation magic is hard, and something that skitters along the lines of the ancient magic of dragons is nearly impossible to mimic. The fact that something is out there that can supposedly do that is worrisome, and he needs to find a way to break off from the group and check it out.

You could technically do that story without any time travel whatsoever, but I like time travel, so chances are good I'd include it and therefore include Danny.

As such, that could work with the Ghost King AU, too, with Danny getting some *ahem* unconventional training off the books that he in absolutely no way signed up for. (I mean, hey, if it were a Ghost King AU, why not go all the way and throw Pariah Dark in there, too? Danny's back here for a history lesson. (Please let this be a normal history lesson. With Clockwork? No way!) History and politicking. And just being on his toes, more so than he already is. He is not as careful in Amity Park as he should be, getting lax about his secret because the general populace seems so oblivious.)

And if Danny were thrown into the past with next to no context? With how careless he is? Even when he's being careful, chances are good someone would catch him at something and he'd be called out for having magic. There's not much people hunting down sorcerers can do when it comes to capturing and keeping him, not without some magic of their own, but Danny would not be able to blend in well even when trying to do so (he'd make little social mistakes even if he pretending to be a beggar simply because he doesn't know the unspoken societal rules), and you cannot throw him into the wild and expect him to survive. (Well. Not happily. You could certainly stretch it, say he doesn't need to eat or drink as much--or anything--if he stays in ghost mode, but you cannot tell me that child paid enough attention to actually learn which berries/mushrooms/etc were poisonous and which weren't, especially when most of what he would be able to reliably recognize might not grow in, oh, we'll go with Wales, shall we? Different environments, different species. Some overlap. Likely not enough overlap.) He's much more likely to resort to stealing food if he can't get any by asking for it, even if he doesn't like the idea, They'd be able to track his movements and hunt him down.

It would be a little like being hunted by Skulker, except it would take longer and involve markedly fewer missiles. (Arrows might not be missiles, but hey, he's not going to discriminate too much between projectiles flying at him that he can't afford to let hit him.) And these people would be better at it. Outside of Camelot, if someone like King Sarrum decided they wanted him? If they went after him, regardless of the cost? Possibly employing the use of sorcerers to track him down? Danny would be screwed.

Until he stumbles into someone who can help him, anyway.

Which would be about ten seconds after he stumbles into someone he knows but doesn't recognize him, as Princess Dorathea is very much alive at this point in time, and Merlin is rattling off an apology for the both of them because he can feel something about Danny that tells him the boy isn't as ordinary as he appears, and not listening to his gut has come back to bite Merlin in the past.

(see more musings)

[tinyshe]

The Great Reset Demands Firing All Unvaccinated Employees Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glance

The Great Reset has been called a conspiracy theory by many, despite specific plans published on the World Economic Forum (WEF) website and partnerships between the WEF and global organizations like the United Nations and World Health Organization

An investigative report asserts that the ongoing restructuring of processes that control food and data are upending traditional practices so private corporations have more control and influence than democratically elected government

A part of the Great Reset is a reset of the economy, including jobs. Many across the U.S. are facing unemployment if they do not choose to take a genetic therapy experiment in the form of a COVID-19 vaccine

Employees of six major hospitals in Cincinnati, Ohio, have filed a lawsuit, hoping to stop the mandated vaccine, which health experts are promoting with inconsistent messages, first claiming it does not stop community transmission; yet, requiring it for employment under the guise of preventing the spread of infection

Over the past year and a half, I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence supporting the claim that the COVID pandemic is a ruse to usher in a new system of global centralized governance by unelected leaders, the so-called Great Reset.

The recent release of the House Foreign Affairs Committee report1 entitled, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” presented solid evidence that many of the “conspiracy theories” about the virus were in fact true. For example, using some intelligence reports and other public documents, the committee found that:2

“… we now believe it’s time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak. We also believe the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV and that it did so sometime before September 12, 2019.”

They presented evidence of genetic modification and wrote this:3

“This report also lays out ample evidence that researchers at the WIV, in conjunction with U.S. scientists and funded by both the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government and the U.S. government, were conducting gain of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV …

In many instances, the scientists were successful in creating 'chimeric viruses' — or viruses created from the pieces of other viruses — that could infect human immune systems.

With dangerous research like this conducted at safety levels similar to a dentist’s office, a natural or genetically modified virus could have easily escaped the lab and infected the community.”

The idea of the Great Reset may feel like a conspiracy theory, especially if life as you know it where you live has not dramatically changed. You still go to work, buy food, go to the gym, go out to eat and attend events. There may be people wearing masks, and you may see or hear news reports about vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, but it hasn’t reached your employer and you may not be personally affected … yet.

But, make no mistake, unless we all do our part to peacefully protest the changes being planned, write to our legislatures, and talk to our neighbors and friends, what is happening in New York,4 France,5 Germany6 and Israel,7 will soon be knocking on your front door.

Does ‘Great Reset’ Sound Like a Conspiracy? It May Be Worse

An article titled, “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better” appeared in Forbes Magazine8 in November 2016. It was written by Ida Auken, a member of the Denmark Parliament9 and agenda contributor at the World Economic Forum (WEF).10

The article was frightening in the simplistic way it describes the dissolution of society as we know it. And, as time marches forward, we see more evidence of what the WEF has proposed as “perfect sense”11 coming true.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested in September 2020 what other world leaders have also promoted12 — that the COVID-19 virus, that has killed and devastated the health of many people, provided the world is an:13

"… opportunity for a reset ... our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change."

More than 20 world leaders came together to suggest, "At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis."14 And while that sounds noble, altruistic and humanitarian, it is the plan for the future that is in stark contrast to the statement.

Ivan Wecke, a journalist from Open Democracy, did a deep dive into some of what lies behind the WEF’s Great Reset plan and found what he called something “almost as sinister hiding in plain sight. In fact, more sinister because it’s real and it’s happening now. And it involves things as fundamental as our food, our data and our vaccines.”15

Although Wecke discounts the plans of the Great Reset to abolish private property, use the virus to solve overpopulation and enslave the remainder of humanity as “nebulous and hard to pin down,” he goes on to illustrate in detail how the fundamental structure of the world that controls food and data, and ultimately humanity, is being upended and restructured so that private corporations have more control and influence than governments.

WEF Calls It ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’

It comes down to “stakeholder capitalism,” which are the magic words that Klaus Schwab, WEF chairman, has been promoting for decades, and is a central theme in the organization's Great Reset plan.16 The concept as Wecke describes it is to transform global capitalism, so corporations create value for stakeholders.17

These stakeholders can be consumers, employees, communities and others. This will be carried out through multi-stakeholder partnerships of governments and private-sector businesses across the globe. As he dug deeper into the concept, it became more apparent that this means giving corporations more power and taking that influence away from democratically elected institutions.

The initial plan was drafted after the 2008 economic crisis and included the vision that governments around the world would be only one influencer in a multi-stakeholder model. When he asked himself who would be the other nongovernmental stakeholders, Wecke only had to look at the WEF partners that meet each year in Davos, Switzerland.

These partners are some of the biggest companies in oil, food, technology and pharmaceuticals. In other words, the companies that could ultimately restructure society and control the supply chain are those that provide everyday necessities. These proposed concepts appear to have started taking shape in a strategic partnership agreement which the WEF signed with the United Nations in 2019.

Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability from the University of Massachusetts18 calls this move an inroad to creating a place for corporations inside the United Nations.19

The WEF is using the concept of multi-stakeholders to change the current system that countries use today to work together. This multilateral system may not always be effective and may have too many layers of bureaucracy, but Wecke says it is “theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena.”20

Big Tech May Run the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation

What’s really happening here, though, is the move toward placing unelected stakeholders in positions of power does not deepen democracy but, rather, puts decision making in the hands of financially focused corporations. As Wecke points out, this will have real-world implications for how medications are distributed, food systems are organized and how Big Tech is governed.

Under a democratic rule of law, six corporations already control 90% of the news media consumed by Americans. Tech Startups calls this an “illusion of choice and objectivity.”21 How much more propaganda will be thrown in the face of consumers when Big Tech is monitoring and controlling Big Tech?

The year 2030 holds significance for the WEF’s vision22 which is to scale technology and facilitate “inclusive growth.” In the fall of 2021, the UN will bring together the Food Systems Summit to achieve sustainable development goals by 2030.23 Yet, Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organization focused on food and nutrition, told Wecke:24

“’Abandoning pesticides is not on the table. How come?’ asks Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organisation focused on food and nutrition.

'There is no discussion on land concentration or holding companies accountable for their environmental and labour abuses.’ This fits into a bigger picture Monsalve sees of large corporations, which dominate the food sector, being reluctant to fix the production system. ‘They just want to come up with new investment opportunities.’”

Wecke also dug into a long list of participants in the 2020 Roadmap For Digital Cooperation25 and found influencers included Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the WEF.26 The functions for the group appear to be vague, but if the group comes to fruition, it will be a decisive victory for those Big Tech companies that have been pushing to expand their power,27 are fighting antitrust rules28 and are facing accusations of tax evasion.29

The move by the UN and WEF has not gone unnoticed. A group of more than 170 civil organizations have signed an open letter30 detailing why they oppose the plan. At a time when stronger regulations are needed to protect consumers, it appears that the new UN digital roadmap may be seeking less.

Firing the Unvaccinated Is the Start of the Great Job Reset

Finally, Wecke addresses the issue of global vaccine distribution.31 Instead of the World Health Organization, which is “the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system,”32 being responsible for vaccine access, another initiative was created called COVAX. According to the WHO, COVAX is co-led by the WHO, UNICEF, CEPI and GAVI.33

As a quick reminder, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) have strong ties with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the WEF and are connected with large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca and more.34

The influence these groups have on the global distribution of the COVID vaccine may have been best illustrated when South Africa and India requested a temporary lift on the rules governing intellectual property to increase manufacturing and distribution to developing countries. Wecke reports35 that although the WHO director-general publicly said that he backed a proposal, others in the COVAX initiative strongly opposed it, and it didn’t happen.

There appears to be enough vaccines available in industrialized nations for the WEF to support any and all employees being fired if they choose not to take the vaccine. The National File36 published a tweet the WEF made in May 2021 which said, “Get your COVID-19 jab — or you could face consequences from your employer #COVID19 #JobsReset21.”

Additionally, the WEF had posted an article37 on their website that made a variety of claims about the percentage of companies that would require employees to be vaccinated and juxtaposed mental health concerns and burnout through the pandemic with being unvaccinated in the article.

After intense backlash, the tweet was deleted and replaced with a question, “Will employees be required to get the COVID-19 vaccination?”38 The new post quickly filled with screen shots of the original post.

Two Cities Promising to Fire Employees

Even before the FDA announced their approval of the Pfizer vaccine,39 Cincinnati, Ohio, area hospital systems had announced that starting October 1, 2021, all health care workers and volunteers are required to be vaccinated. Among those participating in the vaccine mandate are the University of Cincinnati Health, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and the Christ Hospital Health Network.40

Health care workers in Cincinnati have now filed a lawsuit against six of the hospital systems saying requiring vaccines for employment is unlawful and violates workers’ Constitutional rights. The lawsuit says, "When there was no vaccine, the workers had to go to work. They were heroes. Now that there is a vaccine, they have to get the vaccine or be fired. Now they are ‘zeros.’"41

April Hoskins is a lab assistant at St. Elizabeth Edgewood who has worked for 20 years in family practice and hospital oncology. She told a reporter from WLWT5,42 "You've trusted us this whole time to take care of these patients, unvaccinated, without the proper PPE. And now out of nowhere, you have to get it or you're going to be terminated? Like, something is wrong with that picture.”

August 23, 2021, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that all public school teachers and staff would be required to have at least one dose of the vaccine by September 27, 2021, or they would no longer have a job. Not soon afterward, the United Federation of Teachers union issued a statement from union president Michael Mulgrew reiterating their desire and priority to keep the students and teachers safe. He went on to say:43

“While the city is asserting its legal authority to establish this mandate, there are many implementation details, including provisions for medical exceptions, that by law must be negotiated with the UFT and other unions, and if necessary, resolved by arbitration."

It Is Important to Point Out the Inconsistencies

This was the second announcement from de Blasio, who first mandated vaccinations for approximately 400,000 employees in the Department of Education, New York Police Department and the Fire Department of New York.44 In tandem with New York, California Long Beach Unified School District also announced mandatory vaccinations, as has Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for all Chicago Public School employees by October 15, 2021.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy also announced mandatory vaccinations or twice-weekly testing requirements for all state employees, effective October 18. It is clear that as different states and municipalities add their own mandates, it’s essential to be aware of what is happening in your local and regional areas, as well as to speak up at public meetings and demand public hearings on the matter.

The mayor of Orland Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, describes an example of how decisions behind closed doors can have a different outcome than those in public.45 He also says what is happening now is about “our processes, Constitutionality and the rule of law.”

The inconsistencies from health experts are deafening. Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the Delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”46 Simultaneously, the public is told that everyone needs the vaccine to prevent spread of the infection47 and if you have the vaccine, you can still spread the virus and put others at risk.48

Each person has a responsibility to speak up, share information and ensure that as people make up their minds about vaccination, vaccine passports, civil liberties and the right to free speech, they have all the information they need and not just what’s shared in mainstream media.

To that end, I encourage you to share my articles with your friends and family. As you know, they are removed from the website 48 hours after publication. Please copy and paste the information, with the sources, and share it!

[bigskydreaming]

I'm not sure if you got my request because i didn't had internet when i sent it, so i'll write it again xd Do you think Dick (and the batboys in general) are famouse like Bruce? Because in the comics there's not any clue about it, i've never seen anyone say something like "oh look! Its Dick Grayson!, y'know, Wayne's first ward/son And its a shame, because reporters would make such a hard life to all of them, it would maka a good narrative tool

Honestly, this is a prime example of that inconsistency I rant about, and also DC’s refusal to just COMMIT on even the most basic aspects of their universe like….uh…how many kids does Batman have. 

afhsahfklahsklfhal

Like, you would think that would meet the MINIMUM requirements of “shit you should probably have figured out and make sure everybody’s on the same page with” but DC’s like….nah, that’s not important.

So I mean…..I’m reasonably certain - like this is just my personal belief, but I’d put money on it being right, lol - but I think the primary reason there’s so little mention in the comics of how Bruce’s kids are viewed in the public eye/how much the public are aware of them (in the New 52, at least, as pre-Flashpoint there was a lot more plot around that kind of thing, especially back in the 80s and 90s)……

…is because 90% of the writers and editors have no clue either, and nobody wants to be the one to ask, and like, open that can of worms. I 100% think you could ask five different writers at DC which kids Bruce has OFFICIALLY adopted in this current continuity, and get five different answers, lol.

There’s been so much handwaving about Dick’s status ever since Spyral, and again - I think its because nobody bothered to think through the logistics of the Hypnos/global-mindwipe machine BEFORE writing it into the story, and then once it did occur to any of them to like….wonder just how specifically it worked, they were like, fuck it, better just be as vague as possible. So, according to Grayson, everyone Helena didn’t program into the exclusion list before the satellite was activated should have no recollection of Dick Grayson, which is why he was able to ‘go back to his old life’ and be Nightwing again, without worrying about his secret identity having been unmasked…..

But what does that mean for his official identity as adopted son or even just ward of billionaire Bruce Wayne? People can’t have NO memory of Dick Grayson and still remember that Bruce Wayne took in a kid named Dick Grayson. I mean, as far as I can tell, the overall consensus in the comics seems to be that after the satellite was activated, Dick just kinda started from scratch as ‘Dick Grayson’ like, he was free to be himself again, but it was like he was a blank slate/came out of nowhere as far as everyone else was concerned. But again, that means as far as anyone outside of their close circle of family and friends know….Dick Grayson is a non-entity to Bruce Wayne and the two have no history. 

Which I mean, is fairly shitty and you’d think if nothing else, there’d be massive story potential there for delving into Dick’s character and his relationship with Bruce and examining how he felt about ‘having his old life/identity back’….except with the caveat that as far as the world is concerned, his life and identity don’t and have never included his father.

Cut to DC: Naaaaaaaah.

But even WITH that, plot holes persist, and abound, because…..why didn’t the satellite erase the Court of Owls’ knowledge/memory of Dick? Even before Luthor gave Cobb those goggles and files to help him with bringing Ric into the fold, Cobb clearly was already stalking Ric and knew exactly who he was….the Court obviously already had that doctor in place while he was still in recovery…so, whoops. I mean, you could probably come up with an explanation about the Court, via their own tech and resources, having had some protections in place 24/7 that kept the satellite from affecting them even though they weren’t on guard for it specifically…..but again, Occam’s Razor….I feel like the real answer is DC just didn’t care enough to think things that far through. Especially since the average Bludhaven citizen, like Bea, at least didn’t seem totally blown away when Ric revealed to her that amnesia aside, he was supposedly some rich billionaire’s adopted kid….which again suggests that as far as the writers were thinking, people in general are familiar with the idea that Bruce Wayne has more than one kid.

Then you’ve got Jason’s whole situation, and to be honest….I really only have the vaguest idea what’s going on there, because reading Lobdell books is against my religion, and I am a devout and deeply spiritual person, as you all probably can tell. I mean, I know that there’s something going on where like, Jason had himself legally resurrected in the public eye and is openly referring to himself as Bruce Wayne’s formerly-assumed dead foster kid……but like, is that the official official word, or would other writers if you asked them say they’d been operating under the assumption Bruce had adopted Jason too at some point in the Rebirth timeline, or….idek, man.

I…..honestly don’t have the faintest fucking clue what to make of the many back-and-forth retcons about Tim and his parents and his official place in the Batfam/relationship with Bruce, and am actually slightly terrified of even trying to make sense of that clusterfuck of a Gordian knot, so my official stance on Tim is to just like….back sloooooowly away from the anthropomorphic-migraine-masquerading-as-a-backstory, without like….agitating it and accidentally setting off another multiverse Crisis birthed wholly from just that one all-consuming black hole of a retcon.

I mean, there’s a reason I basically just shoehorn all the kids’ official pre-Flashpoint family statuses into anything I write in Rebirth continuity, and that’s not just stubbornness and my refusal to play the “now this kid is adopted…now he’s not…now he is again….except he’s not….oh he’s adopted again…..oh wait now he’s not again" game. 

Its like. Also for the sake of my sanity and stuff.

(And also hahahahaha fuck you DC times infinity, every time you use the words “blood son,” or “real family” in a comic, or have one of Bruce’s other kids refer to Bruce as “your father” when talking to Damian, as if that’s not an utterly bizarre and roundabout way for any sibling to refer to their mutual parent and thus I j’ete REFUSE to acknowledge it as valid….ahem, anyway, my point is, every time they do that in a comic, I double down and headcanon Bruce throwing a random as fuck gala for literally no other purpose than to remind all of Gotham that he has half a dozen kids and they’re all better than everyone else’s. Ugh. Kill it. Kill the “blood son” nonsense with fire and lightning and also lots of stabbing maybe).

Anyway, that’s my official stance on DC’s stance on Damian in the books.

Then as far as Cass goes….ugh, her origins were pretty much utterly butchered by the New 52, which IMO has also failed to give us Cass and Bruce bonding and dynamics sufficient to Sate Mine Ire™, sooooooo…..I mean, my perception of the current canon is that Cassandra’s official status is “secret mystery foster child that nobody really knows about,” but because I do not care for that and there’s the whole not sufficiently sated ire thing I mentioned, I officially reject this canon and willfully replace it with pre-Flashpoint Bruce and Cass love and adoption. DC’s welcome to kiss my critically acclaimed hiney if I’m doing it wrong.

Which brings us last, but certainly not least, as its only this way because I go sequentially and Duke is still Shiny and New comparative to the others and will be until the next inevitable fostering/adoption/clone hi-jinks bumps him up the sequential ladder (except I randomly switched Damian and Cass around this time because LOOK I DONT MAKE THE RULES, THERE ARE NO RULES i hvea Adhd hiccup sob leavem e aloooone soooooob)…..

Duke’s official status, much like the rest of the Batkids, can be summed up as Honestly, I Really Don’t Have A Fucking Clue And Am Just Winging This Whole Thing.

I mean, there’s less inconsistency with him, due mostly to the fact that so few writers other than Snyder use him (boo, hiss, and not just because I hate having to give Snyder credit for stuff - look, I love his Duke, but I loathe how he writes Dami, its a thing, I just…don’t get me started). But what inconsistencies there are….well….they’re a bit glaring.

Basically one major storyline showed Duke as being an official foster kid/ward of Bruce’s and living out of the Manor with Bruce and Damian and occasionally Tim when he’s not off road-tripping around the multiverse….and then Batman and the Signal had Duke in the care of his uncle, who was stated to be his legal guardian and Duke was constantly sneaking out in order to meet Bruce in the special Signal-cave he built specifically for Duke to operate out of so he didn’t have to like, drive all the way out to the Manor to change just so he could then drive back into the city and patrol. And then Batman and the Outsiders just said fuck all that, here’s Duke and Cass hopping hemispheres with the Outsiders every other issue, so apparently nobody’s making unscheduled visits anywhere back in Gotham to make sure these two are where they’re legally assumed to be, which again, for the record is…..*error, source not found*

LOLOL and the really fun thing about this little back and forth is I’m pretty sure allllll these conflicting takes are all the work of the same writer. Like. GET ON YOUR OWN PAGE, DUDE.

Also, again I have to assume the “Can’t Be Bothered To Give A Shit, Or Maybe They’re All Just Really Bad At Logic” curse has struck again, because….uhhhh…..

….at no point anywhere in Duke’s stories have I seen Bruce or literally anyone else express concern about the fact that Duke living with Bruce as his official foster, like he definitely and clearly was at some point at least…..means that literally every single one of his We Are Robin friends who knows that he was taken in by the Batfam (and there’s several of them who know this)….like, by the transcendent properties of You Can’t Honestly Think They’re That Dumb, that’s a good five or six civilians out there who probably took all of five seconds to play connect the dots and figure out the Wayne family, having officially taken Duke in on paper…..is pretty likely the Batfamily.

I mean, I like all of Duke’s friends and would definitely headcanon/write them as all being trustworthy and able to keep this knowledge to themselves for Duke’s sake, if nothing else, but I mean, its pretty unprecedented for Bruce to out himself and all of his kids/allies by extension, to like, that many civilian teenagers all in one swoop….

…sooooooo, you’d think, AGAIN, logically, maybe, perhaps, this is the kind of thing that should be brought up in a narrative somewhere as a plot point worth delving into, y’know, just for shits and giggles and maybe a little bit of that whatchamacallit - oh right, character development, but.

Cut to DC: Naaaaaaah.

 *throws up hands and does the I Can’t Even Shuffle all the way home*

In conclusion:

DC is a mess. The official/public status of each and every Batkid is a mess. Except for Damian, the blood son, but we have that pencilled in on the schedule to be killed with fire and also stabbing, so he can get filed under ‘just a fucking mess’ with the rest of his siblings. Hashtag Solidarity.

I mean, I say just write or headcanon their official status however you damn well please, and it’ll STILL be more effort than I believe DC has put into organizing and staying consistent with all of this, and thus STILL make more sense than what we currently have to work with.

*Shrugs* If they don’t care enough to provide a clear canon blueprint to follow when mapping the Bat Family Tree, I can’t be bothered to care if the one I make up myself happens to contradict one single mention of one kid’s official status as claimed by one issue of one book.

Especially if it was written by Lobdell.

Jason’s just a foster son my ass. grumble mumble bitter vengeful swears and a pox on all DC’s houses. WHY DO YOU PEOPLE HATE ADOPTION SO MUCH, INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW AND ALSO FUCK YOU.

[sillyfudgemonkeys]

My stance on P5 (cause apparently I need to explain myself :/)

So someone just told me someone was vagueing about me on the confessions blog (can’t say my name cause it’s against the rules but they’ll try to get as specific as they can 🙃 if you have issues just be a real anon hater and send to my inbox directly you coward). And I’m not going to do a reblog to that post, because I’m pretty sure that person must be on my blog. Because the post they were vagueing me about was......not tagged.....in the P5 tagged (I did not tag it as P5 nor Persona 5), it was just a post that was on my blog (now if it showed up in the tag or search I dunno why but I didn’t tag it for P5 for a gd reason cause I keep it to my blog). The post was me pointing out how P5 when they first enter Futaba’s dungeon they didn’t have shoes on, but after the cutscene they DID. The post was more comical (with me getting salty in the tags, but then you’d have to go out of your way to read my tags). And tbh, I’m half and half, yeah I know it’s a nitpick, and I’d just chalk it up to an animation error and let it go usually, but it’s P5 and that game is already inconsistent with it’s plot/world building/characters/anything important that I’m like “nah I’mma rag on it cause it’s just one more thing they screwed up” so I’m like half let it go and half rag on it (fun fact, when I saw they didn’t have shoes on I was gonna make a post saying “hey look this is cool, nice attention to detail” and then they messed it up literally 2 seconds later so dklsjf;afa yeah). (oh and btw, it wasn’t just “one” character, it was the whole PT cast at the time 8U” at least get it right 8U)

But the thing is......that was just a post on my blog, I’m not me berating the P5 tag. So that means you, person who vagued me, tend to go on my PERSONAL BLOG. So like....why are you on here? No, don’t ask me about me and P5, I will answer that, but you answer why are you bothering looking at my personal blog? Is it cause of certain content I post? Then just blacklist certain tags (like my “silly plays” tag cause nothing really interesting happens in that tag, or my more negative “persona problems” type tags), I know I need to be better at tagging my asks, but if you like my original content then just.....go to the OG content tags (aka videos/pictures/edits/coloring)? That way you avoid anything not made by me? Or if you don’t have a reason and you’re just here to be mad cause someone doesn’t like your game, then block me. You don’t seem to like me, so just....why are you here? You seem to want to ask why I’m here with P5, and I have my reasons, but if you don’t have a reason to be on my blog then why are you on it?

I’m not saying this to be mean, but I don’t want to be policed, esp if someone is going to be hypocritical about it. And it’s annoying to see vaguing (cause imo you are as bad as someone who sends anon hate, but you don’t have the balls to just send it to me directly XP)

Ok now where’s my stance on P5? I don’t like it, but it’s a part of a larger series and lore which I do LOVE! Which means, considering I’m a LORE WHORE, it doesn’t feel right to just skip a game esp if it could contain info about the MegaTen/Persona lore (or even Character lore) I want to know. In fact, I really hate it when I’m talking lore with someone and if expanded info is brought up from a side game they are like “Oh I didn’t play that game so it’s not canon” No Bethany, just because YOU didn’t play a game doesn’t mean it’s not canon. And no, no one is bullying you over the fact you didn’t play it, you just don’t like being wrong and the person was like “Ok well it IS canon and it’s in the game, you don’t have to play it but you.....can’t ignore this fact, also why are you arguing this part of the lore when it’s heavily established in said game you ignored???? I mean you do you but don’t get mad when someone corrects you. No one’s forcing you to do anything.” Ahhhhrrrrgggh so many convos I’ve seen happen, I’m not going to be on the end that I hate. DX<

Also, P5 is not the entire Persona fandom, so while I put up with it and indulge in it by association, it doesn’t have the ownership of the fandom (like with all the original games+ spinoffs+all remakes/ports and P5S/P5R included, but not mobile games, it’s only 23% of all of Persona in terms of game entries, and that’s overlapping with crossover games, and if we included other stuff P5 is def a minor aspect in terms of entries). It’s not that hard, I’m just a bigger all around Persona fan than I am a Persona 5 critic (I don’t want to say hater, because it feels like it sounds like I’m hating it just to hate it, when really it was a game I was excited for and loved and then it just burned me bad and I’m just dealing with the scorn). Always keep in mind, I loved P5 before I hated it, it’s probably why I’m as salty about it as I am, because I love P5′s potential and....I was just let down (it wasn’t unrealistic expectations, like I said earlier, P5 contradicts itself.....all over the place, it’s hard to ignore and it’s not something that was as big of an issue, or even an issue at all, in other games). 

Why do I still post P5 stuff when I don’t like P5 (by which I mean...posting about the OG manga raws, or wanting to do a partial game to anime dub or even would be willing to help with editing a fandub for the anime)? Because I remember being a newbie Persona/Megaten fan, getting into the series, and wanting to know more about it and it’s side materials but then not being able to have access it any of it (because it was still prettty niche when I first joined and I had no money at the time). I want to give people access to it! Sure it’s harder for me to now to devote time to it (than it was a few years ago), but I want to help with giving access to this Persona/Megaten stuff now that I have some ability! And it also means P5 as well gets some of that love. 8U

As for why I was replaying P5, so this is one thing that’s making me wonder if you are a regular on my blog or not because I’ve been talking about playing the Korean version (but in my one post I forgot to type “silly plays P5/Persona 5 KOREAN” so yeah I forgot to specify Korean at the end). So tbh....I’m actually ignoring P5′s writing while I play (cause I’m just going through the gameplay motions), cause I don’t know korean. 8U And I’m mostly using that tag as a means to point out different things in the korean ver (no that much, but yes Ryu’s shoes ARE censored 8U). But why? Well.....I talk about it here and there but anon/person....1) I’m a trophy whore, I love plat trophies and P5′s is super easy I can get it (and I’m not above playing bad games, oh yeah burn, I’ve played a lot of bad games for plats, and I’ve also played the same games multiple times for plats, I do this to myself but really I don’t mind replaying P5 4+ times for 4+ plats esp since I don’t really have to pay attention). 2) I’m a big MegaTen/Persona collector, I want all the plats I can have (I plan on platting the other versions of the all the dancing games on Vita and PS4, P4G, and the versions of Catherine I don’t have, like I legit have a gd excel sheet keeping track of the versions of Megaten games I don’t have yet....I’m just doing P5 cause it’s 1) one of the easiest to do and 2) it was easier to get my hands on them atm). I don’t talk about my trophy hunting on here that much tbh, but that’s.....really a big reason why I’m doing it (plus with the Korean/CHinese ver I don’t have to pay attention to any story so it’s all good! :D) Yeah I do it to myself, but I don’t really mind. 8U And I mean I tend to keep most of my P5 issue on my blog too. I think the only two posts that I put in the P5 tag were 1) a few consistency issues I wanted to meme about (aka the I’m about to head out post, which was actually the 2nd post I made on that topic but I decided to just meme that one, so I thought it was better than me just bitching, at least I tried to make it a bit funny yet informational 8U), and 2) something that I tbh had an issue since I back when I liked P5 (aka wishing they worked on speeding up the loading times and the fast forward feature), so since I was playing the game I was like “That reminds me, man I hope they fix this in the re-release!”. As for english P5, the only reason I’ll be playing P5 OG in english is for either archiving reasons or research reasons (probably both at once so I don’t have to play through it more than once again).

As for P5R, uhhhhh I’m excited for Kasumi (Jose is cool too, and the new dungeon has me interested too, and all the P2 demons coming back to it makes me wonder what else is/if anything is coming back), she’s my main draw. Yeah it’s connected to P5R, but she looks so much like Hamuko I JUST HAVE TO KNOW WHAT’S UP WITH HER! Hamuko’s my girl, and I need to know if Atlus is going to do something with that, or if I need to be pissed for them literally lifting Hamu’s face! Am I gonna get pissy about P5R’s new add-ons (aka, I’m aware that P5R is probably going to keep the issues from OG P5, so I’mma just judge P5R based on it’s new content)? Yeah, if they kept up the same writing P5 OG had. So yeah, I’m probably going to get pissy if they eff it up, but I’m not going in pissy, going in with really low expectations tbh, but I’m giving it a chance. But if they don’t eff up the new stuff then......that’s good! It means they did something right. So far Kasumi is not Marie so we’re off to a good start. I’m hoping the keep that momentum. 8U

So yeah, I think I have valid reasons for staying, maybe you don’t like it anon/person, but they are there. 

tldr; someone feels like the need to police me despite the fact they could just ignore me (even tho it seems like they specifically came to my blog to get mad, rather than me clogging up the tag, like I post there maybe once or twice every 2 months). My stance on P5 is that I deal with it cause it’s part of a bigger fandom I’m a part of and the fact I love the lore of that bigger fandom so it’s not like I can ignore it. I also have a Playstation trophy problem. 8U And I’m excited for Kasumi is that so bad???? (also I didn’t mention it, but Anne/Haru are enough to keep me around 8U)

[shadowsong26fic]

yo tell me about Shamie, any universe

So, the difficulty here was in coming up with ten facts you don’t already know…XD

Anyway!

Ten Things About Shamie, applicable primarily to their usual canon-aligned timeline (as opposed to Valdemar AU or one of the ones where Mirah acquires them as an adult), though some of these apply to any and all versions.

For those of you who don’t know, Shamie is one of Zeb and Kallus’s four kids. They’re a former pickpocket/street urchin, the third by adoption order, probably the second-oldest, and Human. In modern-day Earth terms, they're agender. They grow up to be a priest in a faith devoted to a sun/fire deity that I still need to name.

Putting the actual list behind a cut because. Uh. I got wordy?

Ask me about my characters!

They’re not technically a feral child, in that they weren’t, like, Raised By Wolves or anything. But both of their birth parents were out of the picture by the time they were two (I think their biological father was possibly gone before they were born, but not 100% sure on that), and then they were on their own for about six months when they were around five or six, and then for about a year until Zeb found them when they were around nine.

I’m not 100% sure who looked after them between two and five, but it’s probably a similar sort of situation to the old woman who looked after Stef before that one Bard found him? I.e., looked after their physical needs/wasn’t especially cruel or kind, but mostly used them as a prop for begging, etc. Anyway, whoever this person was, Shamie’s memories of them are pretty vague and sort of neutral

So, basically, while their social skills are wildly inconsistent, their basic physical milestones were more or less met/language and communication development is more or less on track, and they have enough of a foundation to catch up where they’re lacking.

(Yes, yes, I know this is a thing that tends to get handwaved for the sake of Story all the time, and I’m still doing a certain amount of that, but there’s a limit, at least for me.)

Their original home planet was pretty far away from its star, and therefore lighting tends to be pretty dim or super artificial or both (though there was geothermal heating that gave it a naturally fairly moderate temperature range). Which is probably another reason they gravitated towards a sun/fire deity.

They’re pretty good at reading people/intent; so when they spot Zeb trying to figure out a way to break into whatever he needs to break into, they immediately peg him as Dangerous But Not An Active Threat/Not Scary and keep an eye on him from a distance.

…which probably means they figured out what he was up to and offered to help, rather than him spotting them picking someone else’s pocket and approaching them.

The fact that they then attempted to negotiate price (not…very well, they don’t really have much concept of long-range planning or how to save up or whatever at this point, so fifty credits seems like A Lot to them and that’s where they start, but they made a Spirited Attempt) is probably about 30% of why Zeb decided to keep them.

(Though, initially, Zeb actually kind of encouraged them to disappear/run off after they handed over the passkey he needed, because Let’s Not Get A Small Civilian Child Shot Today Okay That’s Bad.)

(Shamie considered doing that for a minute, but stuck around for reasons that are still fuzzy in my brain, and that just kind of cemented things.)

(Still the best text message conversation when he gets in touch with Alex about maybe bringing home Kid #3

(Also his mission report on the subject: “Did not in fact get the Small Child shot. Go me.”)

So, the way training for priests work in their faith, is that they go to seminary for about three years, and then are sent out as a junior priest for a sort of apprenticeship/internship, which usually lasts anywhere from one to five years. Pretty much every priest takes on a junior at least once over the course of their career. Depending on the kind of career track the junior priest is set upon, their mentor could be in a variety of positions/career stages, though usually the super high-ranked priests don’t take on juniors anymore, and the full priest is generally at least ten years past their own internship. Anyway, all this background to say that Shamie ends up mentoring probably at least three or four junior priests over the course of their career, including one of their ex’s kids.

(Generally, there’s a transition period when an older priest is retiring, especially for priests on the community rather than administrative/political track. This is sometimes, but not always done with an internship, which is how things worked out for Shamie. Their mentor, I think I’ve possibly mentioned, is a Togruta who in my head is played by Maggie Smith.)

They never quite grow to like the heavy snows/storms/how Cold things get in certain seasons (ask them about that time their generator shorted out during a storm and they had to go out and reboot it), but a) it’s still not as bad as Hoth, and b) the view–both of the higher peaks and of the valley below–and the sense of open space/freedom/nature/what have you make the weather patterns absolutely worth putting up with.

Once they got used to the altitude, they made a habit of trying to take one day a week to go hiking. Not so much for the scenery, but because there’s a particular contemplative state they get to when it’s just them and the mountain and the flora and fauna, etc.

(They technically serve a group of about four or five mountain towns, along with the surrounding rural area; their base town/where they actually live is roughly central, altitude-wise, and about as high as Machu Picchu.)

They tend to wear their hair in pretty feminine-coded styles, because they like them better. Probably part of why they let Orryn braid their hair so often. Most of the rest of their presentation is pretty mixed, at least until they’re ordained–their faith doesn’t really have gender differences in standard clerical wear.

While there’s pretty much nothing that they flat-out won’t eat (except that one thing they’re allergic to, or otherwise known to be toxic for humans/obviously spoiled/etc.), they don’t really like sweets/overly sweet things, as a rule.

While they’re pretty phlegmatic/chill about most things, there are a Few Things that genuinely get to them:

They have a Thing about arson.

And a related Thing about not being able to find/get to an exit.

Slugs or anything else that leaves a wet/sticky trail.

Or, like, sticky things in general tend to squick them out a bit. They don’t mind most other types of mess but if it’s sticky it’s Gross.

They really, really don’t like anything that obstructs their hands/fingers–took them a while to even get used to wearing gloves, and that’s mostly because the choice between Gloves and Frostbite.

(They tend to type one-handed, too; pretty much any task that can be done one-handed, they prefer to keep their other hand free Just In Case.)

Apparently, their biological father may have been a clone???

This will probably not be at all relevant since their birth parents aren’t super relevant in general but yeah it’s a Thing.

(…I mean. Assuming the clones weren’t engineered to be sterile, which is possible but I don’t think ever explicitly stated and also this is interesting.)

Also, I’m not sure anyone actually figures it out, unless Shamie has genetic testing done to check for potential issues moving forward–they possibly take more after their mother, appearance-wise (and they’re definitely Taller and Ganglier than any of the clones as an adult), plus there were a lot of weird environmental factors in their early childhood so ::shrug emoji::.

[rosecorcoranwrites]

Editing Advice Part 2: Plot

Last time, I discussed the importance of editing for continuity in the categories of time, place, and people. This week, we're going to focus on the plot-centered issues of internal consistency and plot holes. The line between these two categories is vague at best, but I'm still going to discuss them separately. For our purposes, let's say an internal inconsistency is a problem with the world building and a plot hole is a problem with the plot (as the name implies).

Internal Consistency

I'm not of the belief that you need to know every single thing about your fictional world—when the agricultural revolution happened, how ALL of the economic systems works, etc—but you do have to know enough for it to make sense, and you have to realize when it doesn't. Even if your setting isn't consistent with our world, it needs to be consistent with itself, thus the phrase "internally consistent". You can't break your own rules.

You should be thinking about internal consistency throughout the writing process, but, well, some people don't, so editing is your last shot. Ask yourself, does everything that you have chosen to include in a story follows naturally from how you've built your world? Is there something you don't talk about in your book, but that needs to be mentioned for the world to make sense? If you were a reader, is there anything that would strike you as "off" or unbelievable about the world, even in (or specifically because of) the setting it's in?

For example, in the the setting of Leigh Bardugo's fantasy books, known collectively as the Grishaverse, homosexual relationships are considered as normal as heterosexual ones. Yet, in Six of Crows and Crooked Kingdom, there's this whole subplot about how Wylan's father thinks he's unfit to inherit his mercantile company because Wylan can't read; the father has already divorced/disappeared Wylan's mother, attempted to have Wylan murdered, and remarried so he can get a "better" heir. But, um, why? In a setting where gay relationships are the same as straight ones, there would have to be systems in place for non-bloodline inheritance. Otherwise, homosexual relationships would be seen as a burden by families, since gay heirs wouldn't be able to have heirs of their own without all sorts of weirdness (which I hardly think the families or the heirs would be okay with!). Bardugo has two conflicting societal norms: homosexual relationships are considered normal, and bloodline inheritance is a necessity. She needs to deal with one of those two things, either by explaining it (maybe Wylan's dad cares about blood when no one else does) or getting rid of it (nix the entire subplot with the new wife and have Wylan's dad trying to set up some adopted son or trusted coworker to be his successor instead). Otherwise, part of her world just doesn't make sense.

Internal consistency requires that you think about how everything is connected and affects everything else. No man is an island, they say; no world building factoid is an island, either, I might add. If you want your world to be taken seriously, you have to take it seriously by stepping into it and seeing it as a place with history, culture, sociology, natural history, cosmology, and so on. This is true regardless of how close or far removed your setting is from our own. If you make even one change—vampires exist, no one lives past the age of thirty, the North lost the Civil War, etc—it will have ripple effects across society and the world. Take some time to think about wether or not you've thought those effects through, and wether they might impact something important in the rest of your setting.

If everyone in your society is put into a warrior caste, lawmaker caste, scientist caste, and un-person caste, who grows all the food? Maybe mention that at some point. If you have a space fairing civilization, why would weapons dealers be the richest people and not fuel manufacturers. Maybe switch that around (Last Jedi, I'm looking at you!). If there was a widespread conflict between magic users and non-magic users, can you justify the people who can't wield supernatural forces as being the winners? If wizards have always lived apart from muggles, as evidenced by their robes, feather quills, parchment, and candles, why do they also use locomotives and buses? Why not use pens, paper, and lightbulbs as well? These are the types of questions you should answer at some point, and the editing process is your last chance to do it.

Plot Holes

Plot holes are easier to spot, yet they find their way into published works more than any other inconsistency, probably because people—writers, editors, those who should know better—tend to get so caught up in the story that they overlook things that don't quite make sense. You owe it to yourself, your story, and your readers to keep constant vigilance concerning holes in the plot.

One common plot hole is when a character has some ability or item that could easily solve some problem, but... they just don't use it. Why? Because the plot requires it! Another example is when the villain insists on carrying out some complicated scheme instead of the much simpler option because... plot.

An example that combines both of these hole types is Voldemort's plan in Goblet of Fire, in which the entire plot of the book is predicated on not using a Portkey in a timely fashion. Hear me out. We are shown that Portkeys (items that teleport people who touch them) can be made from anything, even trash. We are eventually shown that the Triwizard Cup is a Portkey, as it is used to teleport Harry to the spot where Voldemort uses his blood for magical resurrection fuel. We learn that Barty Crouch Jr. has gotten close to Harry so that he can manufacture Harry's win, so that Harry can be the first to touch said Portkey. I repeat: he gets very close to Harry, pretending to be his teacher. Harry trusts him. And Portkeys can be anything. Anything.

Do you see my problem? Why not make some random classroom item the Portkey? "Potter, go fetch that book on my desk. The purple one." BAM! Harry's in a graveyard and Voldemort can do the ritual. No need to make sure Harry's name gets in the Goblet of Fire, or talks to Hagrid, who takes him to see Charlie's dragons, in the hopes that this information might give Harry a leg up in the contest, maybe, and then do all the other convoluted things that might, hopefully, ensure that Harry has a head start into the final challenge. I mean, I love Goblet of Fire, but its plot absolutely does not need to exist. The fact that Barty Crouch Jr. doesn't just smack Harry with a Portkey while passing him in a lonely hallway or something is a huge, gaping plot hole.

Another sort of hole is when writers change the rules for certain characters for the sake of the plot. Again, let's look at Harry Potter (if it seems like I'm picking on Rowling, it's because I was absolutely obsessed with her books as a teenager. I nitpick because I care!). In Deathly Hallows, Rowling established that to become the master of the Elder Wand, you have to "defeat" the previous owner. Malfoy defeated Dumbledore with Expelliarmus, then Harry defeated Draco by physically grabbing Draco's wand—not the Elder Wand, mind you, but Draco's own wand—so that Harry is now the Master of the Elder Wand. But we're to believe that Voldemort, then, doesn't become master of the Elder Wand when he Avada Kedavra's Harry in the forest? Why not? How does basically killing someone not count as "defeat" when disarming someone or stealing their stuff does? Because Harry's the Chosen One, I guess? And the plot required it.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying you have to fill in every plot hole, but you definitely have to address them all, in one way or another. Let's go back to our two examples.

Option one, of course, is to fix them. In Goblet of Fire, maybe the resurrection ritual has to take place during an eclipse, and wouldn't you know it, the final challenge of Triwizard Tournaments also takes place during eclipses, and maybe Barty Crouch Jr. has to actually be present at the resurrection ritual so he can't slap Harry with Portkey on that day... or something. For Deathly Hallows, maybe nix the Deathly Hallows (and thus the Elder Wand) subplot from the story entirely, since they add nothing to the plot (in a later post, I will argue that they actually derail the plot), which already involved finding and destroying Horcruxes.

Option two is to keep the plot hole, but explain why it isn't a plot hole. We already know Voldemort could have used any enemy's blood in the resurrection spell (no, really, he says this in the book!) but he has an obsession with Harry. Perhaps this obsession could lead him to forsake the obvious course of action I outlined and instead focus on producing a "worthy" enemy by having Harry "prove himself" in the tournament. As for Deathly Hallows... I mean, I guess you could say Voldemort didn't defeated Harry in the woods, but defeated a piece of his own soul, but that's still pretty weak, in my opinion (just stick with option one and get rid of the Hallows!). Anyway, for this option, the writer has to acknowledge that the plot-hole does exist, but that there is a reason for it to exist, and thus isn't really that much of a plot hole.

A final option is to hang a lantern on it. This means that you leave the plot hole in and point out how big of a hole it is. This works better for comedies or stories where characters are meta-aware of tropes than in more serious works (so, not Harry Potter). For example, have someone wonder why so-and-so didn't use that super useful item back there. Well, he's an idiot, so he forgot! Or maybe someone points out how incredibly unlikely it is that a certain character showed up at exactly the right time and place the other characters needed them in, and he says, "Well, that's a funny story, actually..." before being interrupted, and it is never brought up again. If you're writing such a story and come across a plot hole, feel free to have your characters point it out and move one, as long as you can do this in a way that feels natural to your writing style.

Of course, both world building and plot are so central to any narrative that fixing them may require more than a simple tweak and instead, a complete overhauling of large parts of the story. Next time, we will discuss how to tackle these and other issues during rewrites!

[suncefit-blog]

Understanding the Definition of Health Related Fitness

As being a Health and Fitness Professional, it is my job to understand terms and definitions which are commonplace to this industry, as well to keep up to date with evolving trends. Through my experience, I have found that a number of terms deserve a little more clarification than that which they are given. Aside from clarifying the definition of Health Related Fitness, this article intends to shed some light on a few of the associated conditions, and to show their respective distinctions. Is it simply all in a name? The fitness world seems to use the idea Health Related Fitness like a generic fitness principle - interchangeable with others like "Physical Fitness", "Health and Fitness" or simply "Fitness. " While all of these terms can be included under the broad term Health and Physical Fitness, they individually make reference to different aspects - both generic and specific. Unfortunately, references to these and other fitness-related terms are often vague, while regularity in their intended use is meager at best; there is a kind of "generally accepted" use for them, but individuals often rely on personal interpretation, and this can lead to confusion. With that said, does Health Related Fitness simply infer fitness by means of good health? Not quite. That is why we have to understand a little more behind these words before digesting the definition. How did the term Health Related Physical Fitness come about? That is a great question. One could probably ask what is this concept all about - can we not simply use the terms "Fitness" or "Physical Fitness" instead? " Why Health "Related"? The main reason stems from the fact that most health and fitness terms are used inconsistently and often refer to various concepts or notions. Subsequent to the 1996 report from the US Surgeon General (Physical Activity and Health; a study of the Surgeon General), there was a move to try and address the alarming rise in obesity levels among the general United states public. Studies and initiatives required standardization among clinicians, health practitioners and fitness trainers to grapple with the task available. Enter "Health Related Physical Fitness", a working term to address the general state of health among the public. The definition regarding Health Related Fitness According to the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the main authority in this field, ineffective definitions together with unclear and subjective wordings, as well as definitions containing terms which themselves require defining, have contributed to complicated the term "Physical Fitness. " There exists no reliable guide for Health and Fitness Professionals to measure "Physical Fitness", since the term has been so loosely and inconsistently defined. It is therefore that one should consider the concept of Health Related Fitness. The definition therefore centres on the 5 Components of Physical Fitness which relate to "good health. " These Components are: Cardiorespiratory Fitness Body Structure Flexibility Muscular Strength Muscular Endurance On the other hand, Skill Related Fitness Components are: Balance Reaction Time Coordination Speed Speed Power According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the definition of Physical Fitness emphasizes the difference among Health Related Physical Fitness and Athletic Ability Physical Fitness. Its point-of-departure is the "health" of the US nation, which is often referred to as the actual "public health perspective. " In that respect, the 5 Health Related Fitness Components are more important than those related to Athletic Capability (or Skill Related Components). Although the concept of Health Related Fitness has an integral association with "good health", the five Components are addressed individually by health professionals to allow for their measurement. Now that we have a deeper understanding of the term, exactly what purpose does it serve? Continuing from where the definition left off, the objective of measuring the 5 Components is to recommend clients about their own particular Health Related Fitness, and to use data obtained from the tests to design appropriate exercise applications which can then be evaluated. The 5 Components contribute evenly to make up a holistic Health Related Fitness, which is involving direct interest to the health of the ordinary citizen, in that the concept is normative. In other words, it is a standard which allows with regard to consistent application. It is therefore important for those working in the health and fitness industry not to mistake "overall physical fitness" using "Health Related Physical fitness. " To conclude, let us consider this distinction between Physical Fitness and Health Related Fitness One needs to bear in mind which regular physical exercise can improve overall Physical Fitness, as well as Health Related Fitness. However , overall fitness is a generic term and it is up to subjective interpretation, while Health Related Fitness can be assessed. The distinction therefore , between these two terms, exists in this Health Related Physical Fitness can be measured according to a set of established comparative norms. This is where the "rubber hits the road. " The rules set out by the ACSM enable health professionals to work with clients to assess and measure their response to exercise and prescribe suitable exercise programs. A client's progress can then be monitored and adjusted where necessary in order to obtain the desired fitness goals. Cleto Tirabassi is a certified Fitness Trainer with the International Sports Sciences Association (ISSA). His work centers on the "sensible approach" to Health Related Fitness, which entails the use of practical, flexible and sustainable methods to achieve optimal levels of health insurance and physical fitness. His clientele belongs mostly to the group he calls "average everyday people", who in short want to be within excellent shape, yet still lead a conventional life.

[majestywritez]

Dream Sequences

Intro to Post:

Hey lovelies!! Today's post is all about dreams. Most people think dreams are an easy subject or topic to write about since you know, we all experience our own dreams but to write a good dream sequence, requires a lot of different aspects that I will be going over in the rest of today's post so without further a do let's get started!

Uses for Dreams in Literature

The Realization Dream

In a Realization Dream, something must “click” for a character in a dream, something they couldn’t figure out while awake.

Maybe a character is incapable of putting together certain pieces of evidence in his waking life, but in the midst of a dream’s storm-and-chaos, the pieces fall into place for them. Or maybe their latest desires are thrown into sharp relief in a vivid dream in true Freudian style.

2. The Internal Conflict Dream

A character struggling with an impossible choice might very well dream about it.

Using a dream sequence to colorfully illustrate internal turmoil can give a face to a character’s agony. Remember: show, don’t tell. This is something I often struggle with when writing, guys! Anyone else? Lol

3. The Foreshadowing Dream

The foreshadowing dream is probably one of my very favorites and for me its easier to write. This sequence gives a character a glimpse of the future while they sleep. This particular effect can range from mere hints at events to come—for instance, a character dreams about a ghastly trial where horrible evidence is brought against him, then wakes up and gets dressed down by his overbearing girlfriend—or outright prophesy.

In either case, this dream type should be used sparingly, and with extreme caution: if your characters are able to accurately predict the future with any sort of consistency, it can drain the tension right out of your story!

4. The Communication Dream

Also known as a “shared” or “linked” dream, this conceit comes from the popular notion that people are somehow able to communicate with one another via their dreams.

When used literally—usually in a more fantasy-oriented setting—the Communication Dream can be used either to demonstrate the close emotional bond between siblings, friends, or lovers, or simply to relay important information across vast distances without the use of communication technology.

Or, if the dream isn’t actually “shared,” it can allow one character to say something to another character that she could never say in person, creating a moment of catharsis.

Also a rule to remember before writing a dream: before you begin writing your dream sequence, ask yourself exactly why you’re including it.

If you can’t answer further than, “Because it’ll be awesome,” then the sequence probably isn’t necessary to your story.

Now that we're done discussing the uses for dream sequences, let's get into actually writing one!

Tips for Writing Dream Sequences:

1. Apply a bit of Logic

Writers and critics alike refer to how certain scenes accurately capture “dream logic,” or the fact that dreams seemingly operate on no logic at all.

That’s the keyword, however: “seemingly.”

Remember again that you’re writing a scene first, a scene that your readers need to be able to follow—at least somewhat. Your dream sequence needs to establish its own brand of consistent “dream logic" to ensure that the scene actually functions as a scene.

Even the most surreal and chaotic dreamscape needs some sort of through-line that ties it all together: as bananas as dreams get sometimes, they still have a narrative of some sort.

Even if you decide that your story would be best served by a wildly inconsistent dream sequence, you can at least be consistent in your inconsistency. Basically, keep the chaos running at the same level at all times, and the events within will hold some semblance of internal consistency—even if they’re actually coming apart at the seams.

2. Use Narrative Distance

You’ve no doubt heard of the classic “out-of-body experience” dream, where the dreamer watches their own actions as though they are a spectator instead of being “in the driver’s seat.”

Well, there’s a way to capture that floaty, out-to-lunch feeling in fiction using a narrative technique called narrative distance.

Narrative distance, or “perspective distance,” refers to the implied “space” between the reader and the narrator or character in the story. Are your readers privy to the narrator’s private thoughts or opinions about the goings-on in your book? Does he or she have a distinct personality—or even agency in the story, to a degree?

If so, that’s close narrative distance.

First-person perspective has the closest and most intimate narrative distance, but third-person has varying degrees of this as well. Can your third-person narrator omnisciently “hear” the thoughts of all your major characters—or does the narration function more like a camera lens, observing the action only on a surface level? Or can the narrator only “hear” the inner monologue of one central character? Or maybe a chosen few? All these decisions affect the narrative distance of your story.

But how does this apply to dream sequences? Well, in order to create that floaty, dreamlike feel, simply increase the narrative distance in your story for the duration of the scene. If you’ve got a first-person narrator, switch to third-person limited. If you’re already in third-person limited, “pan out” further—go for that action-oriented, cinematic viewpoint we described earlier.

The goal is to create a shift in perspective so radical that it makes your readers feel like they’re dreaming as well. “Zoom out” from the dream’s events, set your character loose inside—and watch the mayhem begin from afar.

3. Use a Little or Lots of Detail

There are two basic settings for fictional dreams.

First, there are the dreams that take place in vast voids with little detail and only a few characters and concrete objects within them. This creates an empty, lonely, and often eerie atmosphere, appropriate for both nightmares and reflection.

But these dream-voids aren’t merely seen, they’re experienced—and a very specific type of writing is required to simulate that experience on paper.

In this sort of dream, a lamp should go from “the lamp with the gold-colored lampshade and the base shaped like a crouching cat” to simply “a lamp on a low desk.”

Be vague. Be infuriatingly vague. Withhold details. Use sentence fragments. Leave gaps in your descriptions for your readers to fill in: after all, that’s what they’d do if the dream belonged to them!

The other kind of dream turns everything up several notches: the noise, the saturation, the colors, the mayhem… These dreams feel overcrowded, bursting at the seams, difficult to navigate without stepping on (or in) something unpleasant.

These are a different sort of nightmare: use them to communicate stress or illness or indecision, the product of a split, fractured, or divided mind.

Embrace that chaos in your writing. Go into detail overload. Describe things in florid or grotesque fashion, especially things that wouldn’t normally be either florid or grotesque. Have random, surreal elements intrude into the central narrative of the dream, and make sure these intrusions are as unpleasant as possible. Make your readers uneasy with their descriptions.

Not only does this overblown style suit surreal imagery, but it can make even ordinary scenery feel fevered and dreamlike.

A word of warning, however: exercise at least a smidge of restraint here. You may want your fever-dream sequence to be unpleasant, yes—but not so awful that your readers simply walk away.

Alright, I hope all of this information helped anyone who's interested in writing dream sequences. That's it for today's post, have a wonderful day and don't forget I love you all!

[marsnmango]

Things that take me out of fanfiction (as a fanfiction writer)

Aside from the obvious (poor grammar, formatting errors, etc.) these are a few of the things that make me pause and reconsider whether or not I really want to continue reading the thing that I am reading. 

Mis-characterizations; it’s impossible to know with 100% certainty how a character is going to react in all scenarios, but some things are tough to overlook. Characters that are incredibly strong struggling with a weak enemy, for example- that sort of thing can be done, but you’d better set up the context correctly. Or it can throw (me) your reader off. If there’s a reason why your character’s behavior is diverging from what is canonically accurate, explain it! Don’t be afraid to just straight up say it. People (including myself) like to know what they’re in for when they start a fic. 

Inaccuracy. Now it is fiction, so lots of liberties can be taken with this, but if you cannot adequately describe something that your character should know how to do... it’s going to stand out. For example, if your character is a working adult, but you are not, and you do not know how to go to the bank and get cash out of it... Maybe avoid writing that specific scenario. Write around it. Describe it vaguely. 

Politics. You can tackle real issues through writing, if you know how to do it and can do it well. But please, please do not have one character mention [Real world (usually American) political figure] and have everyone else in the scene unanimously agree and rip on that political figure. Unless it’s something completely in-character and reasonable for everyone involved... Even if I agree with everything being said, it’s just annoying. 

Poor/Unrealistic Dialogue. Colloquialism is something that is naturally ingrained in every culture, but please try to keep in mind the differences in a conversation between 2 thirty year olds and 2 teenagers. When I read a story featuring a supposed adult, who speaks as if he is a freshman in high school giving a power point presentation for the first time... it’s. weird

Memes. That’s right, I said memes. I love memelords just as much as the next guy, but unless it’s a story that is very clearly focused on something that would involve that subject matter, I don’t want memes. First of all, fanfiction becomes outdated, fast. A Damn Daniel meme is going to 1. date your story and 2. completely throw me for a loop in your story that is based in Ancient Egypt. The 2 second chuckle from a handful of readers is not worth it. 

Non-existent/Unrealistic Consequences. Problems do not magically go away overnight. In order to avoid leaving any loose ends, list off the primary list of problems that your protagonists are going through. Then when you write the conclusion, double check that it eliminates or addresses each of these problems; whether or not they’re going to persist after the story ends or whatever else the deal might be. If a character struggles with addiction (for example)--make sure the conclusion mentions something about how the character is going to handle (or has handled) this problem. 

Handling tough subject matter lazily. This is tricky for anyone, but if you have never experienced a traumatic situation, but your intention is to portray this situation as realistically as possible... do some research. If it’s a little outside of the realm of reality (parents murdered by shark wolves), research the stages of grief. How people within your protagonist’s age group cope with it and how they don’t, and whether or not your Granted, not all fanfiction strives to be as accurate as possible when it comes to trauma. Some people just genuinely love to torment the hell out of characters they like, and that’s fine- just preface it in the tags or summary. Trigger warnings help as well, that way people know to avoid reading about things that may draw overwhelming or unpleasant feelings. Or a past trauma, worst case scenario. 

Inconsistency. Your dragon-queen alpha wizard raven way had the regeneration ability 3 chapters ago, but now that she lost her hand it’s suddenly the end of the world? If this is the case, there needs to be a reason why it is true this time but wasn’t every other time. You can bend the rules, but make sure there’s a reason (even a ham-fisted one) why they’re being bent. 

Poor/Lazy Characterization. This sort of goes hand-in-hand with inconsistency. If a character is an asshole, who is proudly an asshole and nothing but an asshole... he’s not going to tip his waitress? He’s not going to internally monologue about how the servers work hard and deserve to be paid well, unless he is genuinely a decent person on the inside. Even if the author does this in an attempt to allude to the fact that he is going to become a better person later on, there are better ways to go about it. Your asshole-character would likely be more subtle in his approach, or use misdirection. Throwing a crumpled up $1 bill at a waitress is far more likely and expected of bratty/asshole behavior... “But at least they left a tip?” Not-so-Slow Burns. If you sign up for a slow burn, it might be helpful to focus on the slice-of-life behavior and how the characters gradually get closer throughout. If you rush straight into the romance, it’s not a very slow burn. They don’t generally start feeling doki-doki true love by the third total encounter they’ve ever had in their entire lives. Sometimes, maybe. But handle with care, and keep in mind that people need time to change. If they’re refraining from a relationship or whatever because MC 1 is anti-humanity, your MC isn’t going to become a people-loving pope overnight. A timeskip might help you out there, but it’s risky if it’s unexpected or random. I AM NOT THE FUN POLICE. In the end, even if you borrow the characters- your story is your story. I’ve done almost every single thing on this list, some things more frequently than others depending on the nature of my story. You are allowed to do whatever you want and have as much fun as you want. I’m offering this list mostly to the people who want to receive feedback, because I’ve been there. You’ve finally got your grammar down. You’re working on your vocabulary and formatting and yet..... you still don’t feel any growth or significant change in your audience. It can be frustrating. Making a note of these things and how often you do them will help you to gain a more enthusiastic audience about your work. People like to read fanfiction that feels as though it could stand on its own. This is especially helpful for those fanfiction authors who want to publish their own novels someday.  Also, not all of this falls on the responsibility of the author. If an author consistently updates their tags/summary/notes, etc, then there’s no reason that a reader should walk into a Slow-Burn and expect hasty passionate smut in chapter 2. Or read a story titled “THE GORE OF WAR” and complain about...y’know, gore. Most readers tend to have a pretty good grasp on what the atmosphere of a story is going to by the first paragraph. And the atmosphere may change over time, which is fine! Just keep your readers in mind before your lollipops & sunshine rom-com becomes a last minute zombie apocalypse. Maybe make a note of that in the notes; give people a chance to bail, and trust me, you want them to bail. 1 more hit on your work isn’t worth the 3-paged flame you’re about to receive.  Above all, just have fun and keep writing. The more you write and the more willing you are to constantly adapt to feedback/growth, the better your work is going to become! Nobody starts off writing like R.R. Martin. He probably started off with really shitty star trek slash. 

[occupyvenus]

But why?

Dark!Dany in season 7 (part 1 of ~4). 

I was almost finished writing down my dark!dany-impressions from episodes 1 and two, but then episode 3 aired and I decided to completely change the structure of this little essay and start anew. So of course, this took way longer than anticipated. I decided to finish the first part now, hopefully post the second part later today or tomorrow and complete the third and fourth after Dany went Dracarys in ep 4 (because she will, I just know that she will)

A couple of disclaimers before I get started :

First: D&D are playing loose (very loose) with the social rules and norms established in the books. I will try to keep any “that doesn’t make any sense, in the books xyz would happen” out of this. For example if the show tells me that besieging a city from all sites, thereby cutting its supply lines, will cost the least civilian life, I will take that as a fact. If the show claims that Cersei’s claim to the Iron Throne is “secure” enough to be seen fucking her own brother, at least within Kings Landing and in the mind of several Reach Lords who answered her summon, I will accept that as well. In short: If D&D say that’s how it is, then that’s how it is.

Second: I do not believe that primarily judging characters and their actions from a westerosi point of view really makes sense anymore. The world in which this story takes place should be taken into consideration, yes, but watsonian consistency and accuracy have really taken a backseat to the doylist intentions the show is trying to express. D&D are clearly changing and constructing plot lines, characterizations, decisions and reactions with a modern audience in mind and, most importantly, to accommodate their modern moral and ethical views. This is not to say that modern audiences lack the capacity to put themselves into alien positions and worldviews. This ability simply seems to be very inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory. For example: Even though decapitation has mostly vanished as a form of punishment, it’s fairly easy to recognise the supposed “justice” in such an act. If we are presented with a culprit guilty of a capital crime. As the show has displayed many times, chopping off someone else's head for breaking a vow, does not turn you into a blood-thirsty murderer or ruthless tyrant, even though we all agree, that it’s good we don’t do that anymore. But on the other hand (pun intended) if one of our good guys were to cut of a thief's hand on screen -a widespread punishment for theft over many continents and centuries, including the setting of asoiaf* - we would probably have a harder time to “forgive” them for it. I know I would. Humans and their perception of “moral” are weird. I’m sure there are some theories out there on why that is and what influences this, imo, rather weird phenomena, but I hope you understand what I mean when I say: We can accept different realities and their rules, but only when we can. In my opinion, that’s a framework D&D are carefully working with.

You can disagree with me on that, but that is how I am going to approach the show from now on, this little post included. I will focus on what the show-runners are trying to convey to a modern audience. How do they want us to react to what happens on screen and what tools do they use to influence and guide our reaction. Many of my estimations will be intuitive and not necessarily fully objective, so everyone is free to disagree with me in that perspective. But if you want to refute one of my arguments here, solely based on “but it is based on the medieval !!!”, you will have to present a very compelling case for me to care. Because the show mostly doesn’t care on what time period Westeros is vaguely based on, so why should I? 

Third: These are only my opinions, blah blah. I do not claim to have an insider in HBO who tells me what they were trying to do. These are only my thoughts, my analysis, my interpretations. 

Fourth: I don’t “hate” Dany, I don’t think she is the most evilest person on the show, I simply believe that she is moving into a darker direction. Honestly, that would be the exact twist the series could need right now. It’s starting to get a bit boring and predictable.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s get started with the first big question:

Why even conquer Westeros ?

I believe that both intentions and consequences are important. As a rule of thumb I always judge an action by its consequences, the character of a person by their intentions. This is often intertwined, an “evil” person will often do “evil” things, “good” people can sometimes do “evil” things for “good” reasons, and if a “good” person keeps doing “evil” shit you will sooner or later question how “good” they really are. It’s useless to say that all of this is indeed very subjective and it’s pretty unlikely that two people will always be on the same page. No one has to agree with me on that (after all the entire field of philosophy has been arguing about this for centuries), but I found it to be a fair and meaningful way to assess “ethical positioning”, at least for fictional fictional characters and my own opinion. 

So in this first section, I will focus on the question Why does Dany even want to conquer Westeros? Rather than her qualities as a queen or the consequences of her actions I will try to focus on her intentions, on what drives her to conquer the Seven Kingdoms. I will end this section on whether those intentions justify or warrant the price she is willing to pay for the Iron Throne and talk more thoroughly about it in later parts.

Season 7 has had a number of interesting hints and revelations about this issue.

EPISODE 1 “DRAGONSTONE”

I honestly didn’t pay much attention to the single short scene Dany had in episode one. (I was preoccupied with the case umber & karstark vs the north). But some comments made by Dany-fans caught my attention and made me take another look at her behaviour. What I’m talking about is Dany entering the Throne Room in Dragonstone, walking towards the throne (a symbol for “ruling”) but moving to the next room, rejecting it for the carved table Aegon planned his conquest on 300 years ago (a symbol for just that - “conquest”). 

I read comments along the lines “This was such a great character moment! It really shows where her priorities lie” or “She doesn’t just want to rule, she wants to win!”. After giving it some thought I fully agree with these statements, but ... I do not think that’s ... a good thing? This reminds me very much of something Dario said in season 6: 

You weren’t made to sit on some chair in a palace. [...] You are a conqueror, D Stormborn. 

I think he is spot on with this. It has been shown again and again that what Dany is good at, what she thrives at, is conquest. Fighting and defeating your enemy. My question is: does this make her a good candidate for the Iron Throne? Shouldn’t her conquest simply be the means through which she accomplishes her real goal - ruling - instead of her true vocation? I don’t believe that Dany actually wants to sit on a throne, she simply wants to win it. Robert showed that good soldiers don’t make good kings, I do not believe that good conquerors make good queens neither.

EPISODE 2 “STORMBORN”

This episode tackles and subtly undermines two motivations behind this conquest, that made it an relatable, righteous venture in both our and Danys mind. 

First, Dany admits that Dragonstone “doesn’t feel like home”. 

Dany to Viserys in Pentos [s1]: I don’t want to be his queen. I want to go home. 

Dany to Tyrion in Meereen [s5]: I fought so that no child born into Slaver’s Bay would ever know what it meant to be sold or bought. I will continue that fight here and beyond. But this is not my home. 

Dany to Tyrion in Dragonstone [s7]: I always thought this would be a homecoming. Doesn’t feel like home.

Longing for one’s home is an outmost humane desire. We can empathize and sympathize with this. We can’t begrudge her for this wish or the actions she takes to fulfill it. She might have never spend a day of her adult life in westeros before, but it has always been “home” in her mind. Now she is faced with the ugly reality that it isn’t. That Dragonstone, and I would deduce the Seven Kingdoms as a whole, are a strange, foreign place to her. If the castle she was born in, her family's ancestral seat doesn’t feel “like home”, what will? The Red Keep? The Iron Throne? It is quite tragic, but the only real home Dany ever knew was the House with the red door in Braavos she lived in as a child. And that is not the home she will find at the end of her conquest. 

Second, Dany realizes that the common folk is not praying for her return, sewing dragon banners and drinking secret toasts to her health.

The wine seller and Dany [s1]: You know there are many in your homeland who pray for your return princess. --  I hope to repay your kindness someday.

Tyrion and Dany [s5]: When you get back to you home, who supports you? -- “The common people”. 

Dany to Varys [s7]: They call out for their true queen? They drink secret toasts to my health? People used to tell my brother that sort of thing and he was stupid enough to believe it. 

Acknowledging that Viserys was a fool to believe this, certainly shows maturity and that she’s come to understand “how the world works”, but this notion, that she would return the rightful ruler to her people also gave her conquest a “moral backbone”. After all Dany has always depicted herself as a champion for the common people (at least as long as she was in essos, more on that later). If she believes that “her people are crying out for their true queen”, even if it isn’t true, simply if she believes it, her conquest is to some extent meant to fulfill the wishes of her subjects. Whether that is an important factor for the legitimacy of a feudalistic ruler, is another question, but it definitely is a quality we admire and look for in a good ruler. What makes the King in the North scenes so powerful and engaging, is the fact, that both Robb and Jon are chosen by their people. This has always played an important part in Dany’s self-image as a ruler. She was always shown to be loved by the essosi commoners (ie former slaves), she herself has stated that “the common folk” is who supports her in westeros. But quite frankly the show hasn’t addressed yet what the westerosi small folk is thinking about the dragon queen's return. Neither has Dany. It is only brought up once, when Varys starts to recount how unpopular Cersei is and Dany shuts him down immediately.

I noticed that “the good” Dany could do for the small folk in Westeros is mostly addressed by her supporters, not herself. Varys claims to back her because he believes “she is the best chance the common folk has”, Tyrion is the one to tell Jon that she “protects people from monsters”. In her time in slaver's bay she brought this up numerous times herself: What SHE could do to better their lives. But since she landed in Westeros, she only talks about bringing peace and prosperity to the people twice. Once when talking to Onella, who immediately shits all over warfare-the-nice-way and tells her to be “a dragon” (more on that in part 3) and a second time when talking to Jon. But this sentiment was brought up in the context of how “a targaryen on the Iron Throne and a Stark as warden in north” have been good for the realm. It isn’t directly linked to Dany herself, rather her conception of her family's legacy and it’s influence in the past.

EPISODE 3 “THE QUEENS JUSTICE”

This episode has done nothing to paint Danys motivation in a, let’s say “humanitarian”, light. Quite contrary, Dany freely admits in her own words that this conquest is most and foremost about her. Her wishes, her desires, what she thinks she deserves. She is approaching her “negotiation” with Jon with two key arguments in mind. First, her hereditary claim as a Targaryen and secondly, her personal claim based on her life experiences. 

The last King in the North was Torrhen Stark, who bend the knee to my ancestor, Aegon Targaryen. In exchange for his life and the life of the Northmen, Torrhen Stark swore fealty to House Targaryen in perpetuity. [...] You’ve travelled all this way to break faith with House Targaryen? ...

I’ve already talked about my problems with Dany calling herself the “rightful” ruler. Though she admits that her father was an “evil man”, she doesn’t acknowledge Robert's Rebellion as a justified uprising against a tyrant. She simply sees her father as the bad apple of the family. As a single outlier in the otherwise “consistent” history of “righteous” Targaryen rule. Not only showing an unwillingness to accept any wrongdoings done by her house, her father gets outsourced as an exception, but also the consequences his downfall has for her “birthright”. Notice how she is specifically introduced as the “rightful” ruler (which is a little node at Jon heritage as well). She insists that the oaths Torrhen Stark made to Aegon are valid for eternity. She accuses Jon of “breaking faith” and “being in open rebellion”.  She is not trying to re-establish House Targaryen post-rebellion, she is refusing to acknowledge the rebellions significance, as if it doesn’t even matter. Her goal is to keep the Targaryen rule going, because in her mind, it never was rightfully “interrupted” in the first place. This is a mind-set that hasn’t changed since season 1.

While this argument seems to be prepared, her “outburst” that follows, reveals her most honest thoughts and opinions.

I was born in Dragonstone. Not that I can remember it. We fled before Robert’s assassins could find us. Robert was your father’s best friend, no? I wonder if your father knew that his best friends sent assassins to murder a baby girl in her crib. Not that it matters now, of course. I spent my life in foreign lands. So many men have tried to kill me, I don’t remember all their names. I have been sold like a broodmare. I’ve been chained and betrayed, raped and defiled. Do you know what kept me standing through all these years in exile? Faith. Not in any gods, not in myths and legends. In myself. In D Targaryen. 

 Don’t get me wrong, she deserves sympathy for all this. She was victimized for most her life, breaking free of this role, taking agency and even drawing strength from her abuse is indeed inspiring. I don’t know if that was the purpose of her speech, but I’m sure that many people perceived it that way. I don’t want to badmouth those who took just that away from it. 

But somehow ... it also raised some “tragic-villain-backstory” alarms in my head. You know, traditionally at the end of the movie, when our heroes are chained up somewhere in the bad dudes lair and ask “Why are you doing this?” and the villain responds with all the bad shit that happened to them. Talking about how the world wronged them, often how our heroes wronged them.  “All my life the laughed at me, look who’s laughing now?”

This is not a sentiment directly expressed by her, but I feel like it’s so heavily implied that it’s fair to list it here. She has endured many, many hardships and now she feels that the world “owes” her big time. I feel like her ambition of conquering an entire kingdom has crossed the line of “not letting all your traumas stop you” and entered the realm of “I deserve everything I want, no matter the cost because life was unfair to me.” And that really is a text-book villain motive. 

I really do not like to compare female characters, and I’m not trying to say that one of them “had it worse than the other”, but all of these things also apply to Sansa, some of them even to Cersei. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in an episode titled “The Queen’s justice”, we see one Queen using her sufferings to support her claim, one taking revenge on those who wronged her and another taking care of her people’s needs. All of these three women have suffered in similar ways and while two of them use it to justify their rather selfish behaviour, one of them is shown to spend her time working for others. This “parallel” is only amplified by Bran mentioning Sansa’s wedding night in the same episode. The only reason I can see for Bran bringing up this specific incident (there were many other options to proof his three-eyed-raven powers), is to draw a connection to Danys speech. Again, I am not necessarily trying to set them against each other, but Danys approach to coping with her abuse, at least resembles the one Cersei chose to take. Compare Danys speech to this book quote from Cersei and tell me you don’t get similar vibes:

I waited, and so can he. I waited half my life. She had played the dutiful daughter, the blushing bride, the pliant wife. She had suffered Robert's drunken groping, Jaime's jealousy, Renly's mockery, Varys with his titters, Stannis endlessly grinding his teeth. She had contended with Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and her vile, treacherous, murderous dwarf brother, all the while promising herself that one day it would be her turn. If Margaery Tyrell thinks to cheat me of my hour in the sun, she had bloody well think again.

This makes me believe that Dany is more or will be more like Cersei than she would like to think. If we all believe that Cersei is power hungry, isn’t Dany as well? For very similar reasons? 

The ending of her little speech also makes her seem a bit megalomaniac. 

[...] Do you know what kept me standing through all these years in exile? Faith. Not in any gods, not in myths and legends. In myself. In D Targaryen. The world hasn’t seen a dragon in centuries until my children were born. The Dothraki haven’t crossed the sea, any sea. They did for me. I was born to rule the Seven Kingdoms and I will. 

It’s no surprise really. She is the Mother of Dragons, the Unburnt, the Khal of Khals. It’s no wonder all of this goes to her head. This also ties into her conversation with Melisandre in episode two. She immediately assumes that the prophecy is about her, or at least, seems rather pleased at the possibility. She seems to be taken aback when Mel said she (only) “has a part to play”. (At least that’s how I interpreted it, it’s not really easy to know what EC is trying to convey with her ... “acting”. Sry, not sry.) She has fully accepted herself as a chosen one, a prophesied savior, an über-mensch. Whether because of her lineage or her own achievements, this attitude hinges on plain arrogance and is way more often found in “villains” than “heroes”. 

Please notice that her speech is not triggered by Jon refusing her claim, but by his insistence that the white walkers are real and coming for all them. Having her react like this at that point off the argument seems a bit out of place. It could boil down to shitty writing, but it could also be meant to emphasize an apparent contrast between Jon and Dany. Jon embraces leadership to protect his people, Dany seeks it to satisfy her need for self-importance. 

While episode two subtly degrades her relatable and philanthropic motivations, episode three highlights those who are ultimately self-centered. Those rooted in ideas of superiority and entitlement. Whether she feels entitled because of everything she had to endure or her birthright as the last (lol) Targaryen, isn’t important. The point is that she feels she deserves to rule. She feels entitled to the seven kingdoms because of external circumstances, not because of her own qualities or competence. 

I would also like to point out one more thing: Dany could have very well stayed in Essos. She could have chosen to remain in “the Bay of Dragons”, rule as it’s queen, bringing real stability to the region. The show swept that under the rug, and yes, I promised to just take the bullshit D&D feed me at face value, but it she just left Slaver’s Bay behind when it was time to conquer Westeros. I don’t see any reason why the region shouldn’t return to chaos after she, her armies and her dragons are gone. After all, it was “D Stormborn and her dragons coming to Meereen”, as Tyrion put it, that finally brought the former Masters to obey. Now that she’s busy somewhere else, what’s going to keep them in check? Daario and his 2000 Second Sons? 

She could have stayed there, leading a comfortable life as it’s queen, caring for the people who worship her as the breaker of chains. Instead she decided to lead a war of invasion on Westeros. She decided to leave as soon as a fragile peace took hold, to wage war again. For what? If Dany isn’t fighting for “home” or “the will of her people”, what is she fighting for? What is left? She said it herself: D Targaryen. She is fighting for herself. This all is primarily about her and no one else. Honestly, I have a hard time rooting for someone who starts an invasion for selfish reasons.

This was part 1 of this long-ass post. I really hope I can finish “Tyrion Cricket starring in Danoccio” today or tomorrow. The sections “Fire and Blood and Burning Shit” will follow most likely after episode 4 has aired and my favourite topic right now (Targ!Cest vs Targ!Bowl) will come shortly after that. Stay tuned and thank you for your attention. 

[notspoondere]

A Downward SPYRAL - October 2017 Banlist

SPYRAL Double Helix has been legal in TCG tournament play for ten days.  I’d like to remind everyone of that before we begin.

SPYRALs had a humble beginning in The Dark Illusion, starting off as a fun little archetype with good types and attributes, being moderately fast and good at gaining card advantage, but lacking a serious win condition or boss monster.  Many builds from this time until Maximum Crisis (ab)used the deck’s easy access to powerful Synchro monsters, but several hybrid builds topped as well (notably a few including Zoodiacs, since every deck had a Zoo hybrid during that format).  It was pretty obvious that SPYRAL Quik-Fix was a broken card, but all you could do with it without banishing it after reviving it off of its own effect was search and make a Rank 1, and Sylvan Princessprite was good, but didn’t go anywhere (and it was also released a full two years later than in the OCG, but that’s another thing).

Then we got the Link Strike Starter Deck and Code of the Duelist, and suddenly it became possible to revive Quik-Fix off of its own effect, get a search, make a Rank 1, use that card’s effect (Ghostrick Dullahan halves ATK and Sylvan Princessprite excavates a card and adds it to hand if it’s a spell), then use that as a Link material to get the Quik-Fixes you used safely back in grave.  And now there was very little difference between Quik-Fix and an archetypal Level Eater (minus the whole, you know, level eating), provided you had the resources, as far as spamming Links goes.  Note that Level Eater is limited in the OCG.

Then we got word of archetypal Link Monsters, and then, in Circuit Break, we got Double Helix, allowing for a free Special Summon of any SPYRAL monster from the Deck.

There have been two weekends’ worth of tournaments since CIBR’s release, and SPYRAL took an overwhelming majority of the tops in each one I can remember (each had 27-29 SPYRAL decks in the top 32) with only minor differences.  Every deck in top 32 was main decking playsets of Ash Blossom (for everything), Ghost Ogre (for SPYRAL Resort) and Droll & Lock Bird (to stop your opponent’s plays in their tracks), alongside one Maxx “C” (to sack games going second) and oftentimes one D.D. Crow (searchable off of a Rank 1) or a few copies of Psy-Framegear Gamma (negates hand traps and monster effects). That’s about 12-14 handtraps before you even get into the archetypal cards, and these cards were in EVERY.  SINGLE.  DECK.  You basically had to win the die roll and/or do unspeakable things to their hand in order to win, so the only other deck that took a significant number of tops during this time was Trickstars, a deck with a two card combo that banishes your hand as soon as you search/draw a card outside of the Draw Phase, or a three card combo that banishes your hand as soon as you enter the Standby Phase.

A typical SPYRAL board ends on a Firewall Dragon with two or three co-links and a Bagooska in defense position acting as a Skill Drain on legs for anything that isn’t a Link Monster, more or less, plus usually a Utility Wire (strictly better Phoenix Wing Wind Blast).  In the OCG, it frequently ends on Tri-Gate Wizard, which can negate any card among other things, but the Structure Deck in which it was released hasn’t made its way over yet.  In this sense, you could say we never got full power SPYRALs, but then again, the OCG hit Gofu months ago.

I have more to say about the absurdity of the deck, but I’ll save that for the discussions of the actual cards.  There were only four hits this time.

Limited:

Blackwing - Gofu the Vague Shadow

Much like Daigusto Emeral, this is an archetypal card that saw nearly zero play within its own archetype.  Until Links came around, of course, and we got the ruling that Tokens were valid Link Materials, thus making Gofu a one-card Decode Talker or Missus Radiant that doesn’t consume a Normal Summon.

Opinion on this card has been surprisingly divided.  Opening Gofu is nuts, but every single one you draw after the first is useless unless you’re running Allure of Darkness, since you can’t even Summon it unless you control no monsters.  As it turns out, there’s not really a second turn against good boards of Link monsters, so the advantage is just way too high.  This card also breaks the Crystron link we’ll be getting in maybe three years, but there’s no doubt it would have been hit by then, so better sooner than later.

SPYRAL GEAR - Drone

SPYRAL Quik-Fix

These cards did not serve the same purpose, but they were limited for the same reason: they’re both valid targets for Machine Duplication, which led to insane plusses off of drawing it alongside either of these cards (or any card that searches them), and with a combined nine copies of SPYRAL Resort, you would usually open both, so really the Machine Duplication was the inconsistent part.  Machine Duplication with Quik-Fix gets three searches, and Drone stacks the deck so there isn’t even any guessing involved with the Super Agent effects.  Both combos can immediately make Double Helix with a monster left over.  So why didn’t they hit Machine Duplication?  In truth, it’s not actually that broken of a card for two main reasons.

1. These are basically the only relevant targets for the card, so hitting it would fuck over decks like Deskbots etc, which is totally undeserved (though this hasn’t stopped them in the past, see Emergency Teleport and ROTA.)

2. Ash negates it.  People have been seriously playing Double Summon instead for exclusively this reason.  I wish I was joking.

So that’s that.  Quik-Fix was expected, but I didn’t see them hitting Drone.  Good riddance though, the deck can search both of these cards just fine at one copy.

Set Rotation

Starting from humble beginnings as a short print Common in Maximum Crisis, Set Rotation rose to fame as soon as Field Spells started becoming common enough to play around (i.e. when Zoodiacs were banned, since Zodiac Sign is hilariously bad). Set Rotation gives both players a different face-down Field Spell and locks either player out of activating a new one as long as either player controls one of the ones placed there by Set Rotation’s effect.  The method through which this works means it can’t be negated by Ash Blossom, so that’s already a plus, but this card also gives a tremendous boost to strategies that involve multiple Field Spells, beginning at first with rogue choices like Fire King Island Kozmo, then extending to decks that ran it as an extra three copies of Terraforming, such as ABC.  Most recently, CIBR gave us Destrudo and thus a 1.5 card combo of any Normal Summon-able monster and either Terraforming or Set Rotation that essentially pays 3,000 LP for an Ancient Fairy Dragon and a search on any Field Spell.  This all happens before you start your usual combo off of a Field Spell, and also puts one into your grave to be copied with Pseudo Space later should you so desire.

One application of the card that deserves mention is the Set Rotation lock, which uses the card to give your opponent either Oracle of Zefra or Gateway to Chaos, which both have a mandatory search on activation (i.e. you can’t activate the effect if you don’t have any valid targets in deck).  Doing this locks your opponent out of their Field Spells unless they manage to break it, which has led to some interesting consequences.

Successfully activating the cards will break the lock, so in the OCG, people started siding (or maining!!) copies of Zefrathuban and Lord Gaia the Fierce Knight as targets for Oracle of Zefra and Gateway to Chaos, which led to a 50-50 between every game as players sided out Set Rotation targets depending on what they thought the opponent was going to take out or put in.

In the TCG, as it turns out, a lot of the new SPYRAL players didn’t really know how to play their deck, so we over here got many reports of players locking themselves out of field spells in their opening plays.  The contrast is hilarious.

In any case, this is both a hit to the consistency of Field Spell-based strategies and a nerf to SPYRALs, so it’s more than welcome.

And that’s it.  I didn’t expect this post to get so long, but it’s shorter than the last one at least. 

What will the next format look like?  Probably just like the post-Zoo ban pre-CIBR format, though there’s really no guessing based off of OCG trends since they’re still firmly in SPYRALtown.  Who knows.  Whatever happens, we’re stuck with this list until January, so we might as well get used to it.  I’m pretty happy with it.  Except for the fact that they didn’t hit Trickstars.

Until next time.

[punitivepunning]

Tiger’s Curse: The Prologue

So, this is my first section-by-section snark of this book! Just like the previous one, everything indented and/or italicized is a direct quote from the book. If something is in bold within those sections, it’s something I’m focusing on in that particular quote.

Buckle up for a WILD RIDE, my friends. The disaster starts right here.

So, our preface is the “The Tiger” by William Blake. Of course it is. 

Prologue: The Curse (although Houck writes it “the curse” for...aesthetic reasons, I suppose?)

The prisoner stood with his hands tied in front of him, tired, beaten, and filthy but with a proud back befitting his royal Indian heritage.

Houck does this a lot; she specifies that characters are Indian even though they have no reason not to be. It’s as if she likes to specifically point out, “Look! They’re FOREIGN and EXOTIC!” 

Furthermore, what difference does it make that he’s Indian? Wouldn’t any other royal character have the same sort of stature?

Also, “Indian” is an incredibly vague term when there are multiple Indian kingdoms in this book. It’d be much better to specify which kingdom he’s from.  

His captor, Lokesh, looked on haughtily from a lavishly carved, gilded throne. Tall, white pillars stood like sentinels around the room. Not a whisper of a jungle breeze moved across the sheer draperies. All the prisoner could hear was the steady clinking of Lokesh’s jeweled rings against the side of the golden chair.

Ah yes, the classic stereotype of a rich, lavish Indian kingdom in the middle of the jungle! I’m also not even going to TRY with this sentence structure.

The prisoner was the prince of an Indian kingdom called Mujulaain.

See what I mean? We’ve already covered that he’s Indian. We don’t need to repeat this. At least we now know the name of the kingdom though.

Technically, his current title was Prince and High Protector of the Mujulaain Empire, but he still preferred to think of himself as just his father’s son.

.....Okay, I already hate him. Seriously, being a prince is hard work, and this sort of attitude is completely unnecessary.

That Lokesh, the raja of a small neighboring kingdom called Bhreenam, had managed to kidnap the prince was not as shocking as who was sitting beside Lokesh: Yesubai, the raja’s daughter and the prisoner’s fiancée, and the prince’s younger brother, Kishan.

Okay, wait, what? We used the term “raja” here, so why aren’t we calling the unnamed prisoner “rajkumar” (which means “prince”)? We’re like, two ebook pages in and it’s already inconsistent.

Also, brother angst. Wonderful.

The prince is mad that he’s been kidnapped. he calls this “inhospitality,” and he’s totally clueless about Lokesh’s motives. Apparently the two kingdoms were supposed to be joined with the marriage, but then the unnamed prisoner’s brother started liking Yesubai and then he betrayed the unnamed prisoner. Unnamed prisoner was conveniently not there because he was on the other side of the kingdom dealing with military stuff. The whole thing is just awkward infodumping.

The prisoner strode fearlessly forward, faced Lokesh, and called out, “You have fooled us all. You are like a coiled cobra that has been hiding in his basket, waiting for the moment to strike.”

Okay, so first off, this dialogue is fucking RIDICULOUS. Second off, that snake reference. Because India is Exotic Snake Charmer Land, right? Gross.

Snake references: 1

Okay, now onto literally the next sentence:

He widened his glance to include his brother and his fiancée. “Don’t you see? Your actions have freed the viper, and we are bitten. His poison now runs through our blood, destroying everything.”

....No comment.

Snake references: 2

Lokesh wants unnamed prisoner’s piece of the “Damon Amulet” and threatens to take the unnamed prisoner’s life. So the stakes jumped from “have your fiancée” (as if this woman is an object to be bartered) to “keep being alive.” Apparently no matter what unnamed prisoner does, his brother will be married to Yesubai.

He [Lokesh] stroked his short, stippled beard and then clarified, “Of course, you understand, that even should I allow you to live, I will rule both kingdoms.” Lokesh smiled. “If you defy me I will forcibly remove your piece of the amulet.”

It’s not like, y’know, there’s still a KING or an ARMY or anything. (The king is specifically referenced, and after all, the two brothers are still princes.) Also, the villain LITERALLY JUST STROKED HIS BEARD.

Also, I’d like to point out that no matter what happens, unnamed prisoner is going to lose his amulet. If unnamed prisoner gets out of this alive, it implies that he no longer has his amulet because he had to give it up, which means Lokesh can’t use it as leverage.

This is the breaking point for the backstabbing brother Kishan, though, who then objects that his brother’s life was never supposed to be threatened. This super important amulet thing would just be taken, that’s all.

Lokesh shot out his hand as quickly as a snake and grabbed Kishan’s wrist.

Snake references: 3

Lokesh, who is now basically a cartoonish Evil Dude, responds by also threatening Kishan. If Kishan doesn’t give Lokesh his part of the amulet as well, Yesubai won’t be married to him. 

“[...] Perhaps an old sultan will cool her blood.”

Okay, so, as you’ll find out later, this prologue is set in the late 1670s. There were no sultans in India, so I have no clue where he would be sending his daughter or why anybody so far away would want her to be their bride, seeing how there’s basically no political or strategic incentive.

You know what WAS around during this time? The Mughals. They basically wanted to exterminate anything that didn’t follow their religion. “Lokesh” is a Hindu name. I have no clue why he isn’t stressed about the Mughals.

ALSO! Speaking of names, here’s the breakdown on their meanings:

Lokesh = “Lord Brahma”

Yesubai = “masculine” (In fact, it’s often a male name, but I’ll let it slide because a couple Indian queens were named Yesubai.)

Kishan = “black” 

Now back to the book. So, the brothers finally realize “oh shit, we gotta save the kingdom” after these threats.

Obsession pumped up Lokesh’s neck, throbbed at his temple, and settled behind his black, serpentine eyes.

Ummm...what does that mean? How does obsession pump up your neck? Anger makes sense because it causes a rise in your blood pressure, but obsession? Not always.

Snake references: 4

Lokesh then realizes that nobody wants to cooperate with him and then he gets mad and pulls out a knife. 

Lokesh pulled a shiny knife with a jeweled hilt from his robe and roughly yanked up the sleeve of the prisoner’s now filthy, once-white Jodhpuri coat.

So, Jodhpuri coats originated in the Jodhpur State (hence the name), which was, I believe, a part of the Mughal Empire at the time. Jodhpur is in the modern state of Rajasthan, which is in northeastern region of India, and it borders Pakistan. Rajasthan’s climate is also more arid, and it doesn’t have much jungle (a “jungle breeze” was referenced earlier). Jodhpuri coats were popularized during the British Raj (1858–1947).

With the mention of this one article of clothing, Houck’s setting falls apart. How can the Mujulaain Empire exist near enough the Jodhpur State, Mughal territory, when the extremely powerful Mughals wanted to get rid of Hinduism? Where exactly are they that allows them to be in a jungle? Even if it isn’t actually set in Jodhpur, why is a character wearing a Jodhpuri coat, especially when these coats wouldn’t become popular and widespread until two centuries later?

This is all basic google research. I’m SO FRUSTRATED.

I’m okay. Deep breaths. Moving on.

Lokesh does some weird magic shit with the unnamed prisoner’s blood. He drips the blood from his snazzy knife onto a wooden talisman, which glows red and then shoots out white light.

The light shot towards the prince with groping fingers that pierced his chest and clawed its way through his body. Though strong, he wasn’t prepared for the pain. The captive screamed as his body suddenly became inflamed with prickly heat and he fell to the floor.

Riiiight, he can’t show weakness when he’s being literally clawed by light because he’s “strong.” Also, when you invent magic like this, you might want to be a little more specific with the details. Is the light literally shaped like a hand? Who knows?

There’s a super dramatic scene where both Kishan and Yesubai try to fight Lokesh, but our obligatory cartoonish Evil Dude effortlessly shoves them both away. Apparently he pushes his daughter particularly hard, because she dies, and Kishan is heartbroken or whatever. Then the prologue ends with extreme pain from unnamed prisoner.

I’m a bit confused; we info-dumped everybody’s names, the names of the kingdoms, and the political situations, but we never learn the prisoner character’s name. Because Reasons.

So, with that, we have awful writing with annoying infodumps and clunky and unrealistic dialogue, stupid characters, racism and exotification that rely heavily on stereotypes of India (FOUR snake references you guys), and an alarming lack of research.

This is going to be fun.

[pekorosu]

On the topic of Chinese names in Banana Fish

Warning for manga spoilers and also a lengthy discussion.

This is something I’ve been wanting to explore due to its differences in the original Japanese and the English localisation. I will mostly be discussing the major recurring characters, starting with the Lees.

The Lee family

Interestingly, the Lees have actual Chinese characters for their names in the original Japanese. They are:

李紅龍 (Localisation: Lee Hong-Lung)

李大龍 / 王龍 (Localisation: Lee Tai-Lung / Wang-Lung)

李華龍 (Localisation: Lee Hua-Lung)

李月龍 (Localisation: Lee Yut-Lung)

Thanks to this, they are also the only ones with confirmed Mandarin-pronounced names. For example, 月龍 (Pinyin: yuè lóng) is given the furigana ユエルン (yuerun) in Japanese. I'm guessing this is because the characters were actually looked up from a proper Chinese source. 

This initially made me inclined to think of the Lee family as hailing from further north of China, especially with the brief mention in volume 4 of them being descendants of the Qing Dynasty’s ruling family (Wouldn’t that make them Manchu people though? And that would open up a whole other can of worms...). 

However, it is also mentioned in volume 17 that Yut-Lung actually came from Hong Kong. So that makes the localisation’s decision to romanise 月龍 as “Yut-Lung” perfectly appropriate.

Localisation

What is it about “Yut-Lung” that makes it so suitable? It is very obviously Cantonese. The transliteration of 李 as “Lee” instead of “Li” could also be indicative of that. Setting Yut-Lung’s birthplace aside, it still wouldn't be farfetched to infer from how established the Lees are in the States plus the fact that Hong-Lung had once been based in HK, that they would be Cantonese speakers.

The eldest Lee son has also been addressed in 3 different ways. He is first introduced as 李大人 (Localisation: Lee Daai Yan), the latter half of which is probably a title of respect (I think "Daai Gor/Lou" would be a better fit though?). We later come to know him as 李大龍 (Lee Tai-Lung), and then 王龍 (Wang-Lung) which is said to be inherited from his predecessor.

Also, Yut-Lung’s attendant was renamed Suk-Leui, which sounds Cantonese (originally スウルー (sūrū)). From this, it’s clear that the localisation is making a deliberate move to depict them as Cantonese speakers.

There is a catch though. If we were to be more accurate, Wang-Lung should be Wong-Lung, Hua-Lung should be Wah-Lung, and Tai-Lung should be Daai-Lung. I have two theories here: 

The localisation is deliberately using Mandarin for the other Lees except Yut-Lung, hence affirming their earlier-mentioned family history. But this would bring up the question of: why is it not Da-Lung instead of Tai-Lung (as far as I know, the “tai/dai” pronunciation for Mandarin should be obsolete)? Are they perhaps just following the original Japanese furigana...?

You could argue that they sound similar enough for the romanisation differences to be considered minor. Especially in the case of Hong-Lung/Hung-Lung, the difference is negligible. 

Another funny thing is that in both versions, the characters are 100% speaking Mandarin whenever they speak “Chinese.” This can be inferred from both the furigana attached and the structure of the sentences itself. 

Note: I don’t know if it sounds natural or not because I don’t speak much Mandarin, just that the grammar and vocab definitely indicates Mandarin.

Example:

I mean, to be fair it’s unrealistic to expect the localisation to change it into written Cantonese, but because of this we now have another inconsistency in the loc. 

(For those who are interested, brief info on Mando/Canto differences: link 1, link 2. Note: “It would usually sound unnatural to speak Cantonese using Mandarin grammar." Also I would argue since this is a manga and therefore an informal medium (plus the charas are conversing not writing), thinking of the dialogue as being in standard written Chinese kinda makes no sense.) 

Summary:

The original Japanese is consistent in ensuring that any furigana attached to Chinese characters in names and Chinese dialogue correspond to Mandarin. However, this contradicts facts involving characters who come from or currently live in Cantonese-dominant areas (HK, Chinatowns of that era).

The English localisation made an effort to change some things into Cantonese to better suit the context, but did not extend it to the Chinese dialogue and is overall inconsistent.

Side note: ユーシス (Yousiss) is supposed to be Yut-Lung’s English/”American” name. The English localisation came up with “Yau-Si” which yup, doesn’t sound very English. My guess is that they overlooked it at first, because this tiny mention only shows up once in volume 11. It is omitted in the localisation.

Edit (7/2/2021): I’m now convinced that ユーシス (Yousiss) could actually be “Eustace.” Please see this post for details.

Shorter Wong (ショーター・ウォン), Nadia Wong (マーディア・ウォン), Lao Yen Tai (ラオ・イェン・タイ)

I don’t have much to say about “Shorter” beyond that it's a quirky English name, haha. But interestingly, in one of the Chinese dialogues, Yut-Lung calls him “肖達” (Pinyin: xiào dá) which... I’m just going to assume is a Mandarin transliteration of “Shorter.” 

“Nadia” was originally マーディア (mādia) or as the official guidebook has romanised it, Mardeer. Either way doesn’t affect much. More importantly, I think it’s safe to assume that Wong is a Cantonese romanisation. I think it would be apt if it also happened to be 黃 because yellow is the theme colour of the series... and is reminiscent of “banana (fish)” which is the reason for what befalls Shorter... :x

Lao (or Lau?) can be a Mandarin surname but it seems very uncommon. On the other hand, it could be a non-Mandarin romanisation of Liu (劉/刘). Not sure about “Yen/Yuen Tai.” Fun fact: if we took 劉 and stuck it into a kanji dictionary, we’d get the meaning “to kill” (that meaning is probably obsolete though).

Surprisingly, these names are fitting in very well with the idea that they are not supposed to be read as Mandarin. It would make perfect sense though, as Chinatowns were at that time dominated by Canto speakers, as opposed to the Mandarin of today. 

From this, I feel inclined to posit that “Sing” is either Canto or non-Mandarin as well, though there is no evidence of this intention in the original source material.

Sing Soo Ling (シン・スウ・リン)

This guy is a special case because we actually have the meaning(s) to his name, but no Chinese characters to go with it. So we would have to do a bit of sleuthing.

Since "Sing" is a localisation, it's not going to be the best place to start from. "シン (Shin)" alone is vague too. It could turn out to be Cheng, Shing, Xin, Sim… coupled with not knowing which dialect or system of romanisation to use, that creates way too many options!

However, I’m betting if the mangaka went to the lengths of researching definitions, she would have gone straight to Mandarin, or possibly Canto. So that’s where I’ve restricted my search to.

Which is it?

According to Sing in Garden of Light, his name carries the Japanese meanings of 魔神, 獅子 and 罪. The localisation translated them as “demon,” “lion” and “guilt” respectively.

You'd think that each of those would match up with all the characters in his name since it's unlikely for only 1 character to carry all 3 meanings. Unfortunately I've looked into various dictionaries with very little success. They just don’t match up at all!

Here's my speculation:

獅子

I thought 獅子 would be the easiest to start with since there can't possibly be that many characters for "lion". Which proved to be true! But that just meant I hit a dead end pretty quick. 

“Lion” in Chinese is also 獅子 but pronounced "shī zi" and "si zi" in Mando and Canto respectively. Not close at all to "shin/sing" plus they’re missing the final n/ng sound.

I was pretty stumped, but then it hit me that… hey! "Singa" is “lion” in Malay. And that led me to "Singapore" which then led me to 新加坡 / 星加坡 (Pinyin: xīn jiā pō / xīng jiā pō. The former is the official transliteration. Not sure about the latter but I think it is a Canto reading because: san gaa bo / sing gaa bo). Also: [Sin]gapore = [シン]ガポール!

"Xin/Xing" doesn't mean "lion" per se, but since it's a Mandarin transliteration of its native name, it could sort of, partly... indirectly... mean that...? I feel like I'm reaching a little here but damn, the mangaka is not making this easy.

Edit (18/8/2020): I've omitted a lot of my research in order to keep this post short and concise, but as time goes on I am more convinced that Yoshida took her meanings not from Chinese, but elsewhere. So I'm making a minor edit to include this as well:

- The word siṃhá from Sanskrit carries the meaning of “lion.” (x) 

- It seems to have descended into "sinh/sing" in languages such as Hindi (सिंह), Lao (ສິງ) and others. 

- In Thai, lion is “singto/sing” and there’s even a common given name called Sing(h). (x)

- The Sikh surname “Singh” is also said to have been derived from Sanskrit.

Combined with the fact that "singa" itself from "Singapore" has its roots in this Sanskrit word, this seems to be the strongest contender at the moment.

罪

It's possible that 罪 could be referring to not just "guilt" but "sin". After all, "sin" is close to how the average Japanese person would romanise シン (using Kunrei-Shiki romanisation). And guess what, it IS romanised as “Sin” in New York Sense and in the first edition of the official guidebook. I wouldn’t rule out the mangaka going through an English dictionary looking for the definition of “sin” because to her, it’s the same as シン. Honestly, I’m 99% sure that’s what she did.

魔神

I haven’t had any success with 魔神 which can also mean “devil/evil spirit.” The only thing that came to mind is that some kanji can be read as both “shin” or “jin” depending on the context, which then made me think of djinns? Which are evil spirits in a sense… This feels way too vague though.

Edit (18/8/2020): Still no luck here, but tumblr user sayaka19fan has suggested that "魔神" could refer to "死神/shinigami", the god of death.

But if that’s the case, why didn’t Yoshida just use “死神” from the get-go? sayaka19fan explained that it could have something to do with the taboo surrounding the word “shi (死)” or “death” in Japanese culture. Personally, I am not quite convinced because:

1) Yoshida had no problem depicting Ash talking at length about “death” in the leopard scene. I don’t see any reason why Sing would shy away from the topic/word either, unless maybe he’s extra aware of Akira’s presence, since she’s a child?

2) Also, "shinigami" is shi-ni-ga-mi (シニガミ), not shin-i-ga-mi (シンイガミ). By dropping the n (ン) sound, the entire word changes and shi (シ) alone is not Sing's name anymore.

If all 3 meanings had the same pattern of only drawing from shi (シ) then I might be more convinced, but as shown above, 2 out of 3 derive from words that can definitively be read as "sin/sing/シン". I'm inclined to think that 魔神 should follow as well, since there’s no reason for Yoshida to suddenly diverge from this rule. 

- - - - - - - -

"スウリン/Soo Ling" doesn't seem to factor into any of these at all, so I’m convinced that the mangaka meant for those meanings to originate only from “Sing.”

I feel hesitant going with 新 / 星 as his family name, since they look like extremely uncommon ones. For what it’s worth, the Taiwanese(?) Mandarin localisation has gone with 辛舒霖 (Pinyin: xīn shū lín) with 辛 being the most common form of the “Xin” surname. He also shows up in another one of Yoshida’s works, Yasha, but they went with 沈叔林 (Pinyin: shěn shū lín) there.

At this point I suppose there’s still no One True Answer. But for the sake of consistency, it’s probably best to stick with 辛舒霖 if people want to use his Chinese name.

Edit (13/10/2021): I have expanded more on Sing’s name HERE.

Final thoughts:

It’s perfectly possible that the mangaka did not think too deeply about most of these names. She once named a Chinese character キム・ヨン・タイ (kim yong tai) which thanks to the surname, ended up sounding Korean instead. Of course, you could argue that it’s another non-Mandarin variation (Hokkien?). The English localisation however, changed it to “Hong Zhe-Ming.” There’s also the fact that she has twice referred to Lao as “Lao Yen” in Japanese, which is a heinous but hilarious mash up of his surname and half of his first name. 

Yeah, this series is far from being 100% accurate in other areas as well but hey, sometimes it’s just fun to point this stuff out :p

Thanks if you’ve read this far, and feel free to let me know if I’ve made a mistake or missed anything!

Extra footnote just in case: Regarding the whole "do they speak Mando/Canto" thing, I am examining it purely from the manga's perspective. I think that circumstances in the anime are different and perhaps more complex due to the change in setting.