#logistics have largely been the same for like a century

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

[strangelittlestories]

Something interesting about archaeology is that it’s actually not that interesting: even when you’re on a dig, most of it is dirt and logistics and fragments.

Something scary about ghosts is that they’re actually not that frightening: even when you have a haunting, most of it is ectoplasm and low-key longing and echoes.

The fascinating bit about both is that, sometimes, when you piece all the boring bits together, you get a story; a story of how people used to live. It will probably be a story about something mundane, like how people cooked or what their bathroom solutions were.

For example: at this particular dig, we found fragments of large cooking pots in a few larger buildings. The smaller buildings that seemed to be individual homes did not have *any* surviving cooking pots (not even any copper remnants); however, they did have at least one well preserved earthenware bowl inscribed with runes.

These runes turned out to be a close match to an early rune of co-locating folk magic, seen primarily in the Katabasic region. The bowl was also adorned with a slate inlay, of a kind that was often used to write upon in chalk.

The apparent conclusion? This settlement operated a communal cooking operation that delivered food to order. We would assume the recipient would write their request in chalk on the slate inlay of their bowl, and the runes would briefly trick reality into thinking the inside of the bowl and the inside of the pot occupied the same space. Thus, the bowl would magically fill with food.

So, yeah. These folks had invented magical Doordash.

I briefly considered trying to replicate their system on my travel mug. The coffee on the dig site was *dreadful*, so I figured I could have my husband make some nice single origin cold brew back home (or maybe a nice pot of darjeeling second flush?) and teleport it in. But as it was likely tied to local hospitality folk magic, this would likely run across three problems: 1. Range limitations. 2. It may only work for community members. 3. Folk magic sometimes used local deities or spirits as intermediaries and popping a new request in the inbox of a dormant god was usually a bad call.

Oh, and reason number 4: the bowl we’d excavated was extremely haunted.

This may, in fact, explain why it was so well preserved. Theurgic suffusation is the term - if the spirit is clinging tightly enough to the atoms of the object, then time starts to think the material is just as undying as the soul.

You know how I mentioned the scary thing about ghosts is that they’re not scary? They only persist as fully ensouled beings as long as their unfinished business can feasibly *be finished*. Even with generation blood debts, they still tend to become unviable with a couple of centuries. Then the soul slowly starts to move on, leaving only an imprint on the umbra. That’s what’s scary about ghosts: even that which is undying will be eaten by history.

Except this blighter apparently.

So I ran a chemical analysis on the trace molecules left on the lining of the bowl. Then I ran the runes through a penumbral simulation matrix.

The bowl contained traces of calcified aconite. The runes showed an exploit in the magic; the teleportation could be hijacked by holy petition or speculative conjuration.

The ghost had been poisoned. Murdered.

And if they were still a ghost, then whoever killed them was *still around*.

I really really hope that I never meet whatever person or creature is apparently still alive close to a millennia after they murdering someone in a way that is both *really clever* and *really nasty*.

But oh buddy, oh pal … what I want may be immaterial. For surely do intend to figure out the whole of this story.

---

With thanks to Ellie for the submission of the Archaeologist (fearless, frightened, fancy) to the Character of the Month club.

Want to submit your own characters for my stories? Consider supporting me on Ko-Fi with a recurring donation https://ko-fi.com/strangelittlestories

[literary-illuminati]

2024 Book Review #5 – The Tusks of Extinction by Ray Nayler

I read Nayler’s The Mountain in the Sea last year and, despite thinking it was ultimately kind of a noble failure, liked it more than enough to give his new novella a try. It didn’t hurt that the premise as described in the marketing copy sounded incredible. I can’t quite say it was worth it, but that’s really only because this novella barely cost less than the 500-page doorstopper I picked up at the same time and I need to consider economies here – it absolutely lived up to the promise of its premise.

The book is set a century and change into the future, when a de-extinction initiative has gotten funding from the Russian government to resurrect the Siberian mammoth – or, at least, splice together a chimera that’s close-enough and birth it from african elephant surrogate mothers – to begin the process of restoring the prehistoric taiga as a carbon sink. The problem: there’s no one on earth left who knows how wild mammoth are supposed to, like, live- the only surviving elephants have been living in captivity for generations. Plop the ressurectees in the wilderness and they’ll just be very confused and anxious until they starve. The solution: the technology to capture a perfect image of a human mind is quite old, and due to winning some prestigious international award our protagonist – an obsessive partisan of elephant conservation – was basically forced to have her mind copied and put in storage a few months before she was killed by poachers.

So the solution of who will raise and socialize these newly created mammoths is ‘the 100-year-old ghost of an elephant expert, after having her consciousness reincarnated in a mammoth’s body to lead the first herd as the most mature matriarch’. It works better than you’d expect, really, but as it turns out she has some rather strong opinions about poachers, and isn’t necessarily very understanding when the solution found to keep the project funded involves letting some oligarch spend a small country’s GDP on the chance to shoot a bull and take some trophies.

So this is a novella, and a fairly short one – it’s densely packed with ideas but the length and the constraints of narrative mean that they’re more evoked or presented than carefully considered. This mostly jumps out at me with how the book approaches wildlife conservation – a theme that was also one of the overriding concerns of Mountain where it was considered at much greater length. I actually think the shorter length might have done Nayler a service here, if only because it let him focus things on one specific episode and finish things with a more equivocal and ambiguous ending than the saccharine deux ex machina he felt compelled to resort to in Mountain.

The protection of wildlife is pretty clearly something he’s deeply invested in – even if he didn’t outright say so in the acknowledgements, it just about sings out from the pages of both books. Specifically, he’s pretty despairing about it – both books to a great extent turn around how you convince the world at large to allow these animals to live undisturbed when all the economic incentives point the other way, a question he seems quite acutely aware he lacks a good answer to.

Like everyone else whose parents had Jurassic Park on VHS growing up, I’ve always found the science of de-extinction intensely fascinating – especially as it becomes more and more plausible every day. This book wouldn’t have drawn my eye to nearly the degree it did if I don’t remember the exact feature article I’d bet real money inspired it about a group of scientists trying to do, well, exactly the same thing as the de-extinctionists do in the book (digital resurrection aside). The book actually examines the project with an eye to practicalities and logistics – and moreover, portrays it as at base a fundamentally heroic, noble undertaking as opposed to yet another morality tale about scientific hubris. So even disregarding everything else it had pretty much already won me over just with that.

The book’s portrayal of the future and technology more generally is broader and less carefully considered, but it still rang truer than the vast majority of sci fi does – which is, I suppose, another way of saying that it’s a weathered and weather-beaten world with new and better toys, but one still very fundamentally recognizable as our own, without any great revolutions or apocalyptic ruptures in the interim. Mosquito's got CRISPR’d into nonexistence and elephants were poached into extinction outside of captivity, children play with cybernetically controlled drones and the president of the Russian Federation may or may not be a digital ghost incarnated into a series of purpose-grown clones, but for all that it’s still the same shitty old earth. It’s rather charming, really.

[abeautifulblog]

Hi! You said you could help talk me through feudal worldbuilding, and I’d love to pick your brain!

Absolutely! Probably easiest to hit me up over discord (I'm _gremble) and then I would be happy to talk your ear off. 🤣 My wheelhouse is very narrowly focused on mid 9th century England (re: what Anglo Saxon society/military/governance looked like when the vikings rolled up), and iirc, some of the features you mentioned being interested in are more the product of later medieval political structures. I cannot help you with those, but I can probably help with some of the overall mental shifts, because a lot of the things we take for granted in the modern era were just............ not the way things worked back then.

In particular, the word "general" in your initial ask jumped out at me, because it brought up one of the exact issues that I'd run into. The character I was working with had been presented in canon as "the king's top general" -- not those words, but definitely those vibes -- that he was The Guy In Charge Of The Army. Except as soon as I started researching military structures in that period, I found out that that's not how armies worked. When the king needed to go to war, he would call on all his top landholding nobles to round up a bunch of their dudes -- which would be a large number of armed peasants, and a smaller number of fulltime warriors -- and bring their portion of the army to bear.

But these various segments of the army remained under the command of their various lords, marching under separate banners. The lords, in essence, were the generals -- there's not one guy commanding the entire army as a single unit (except for the king, sort of), and there's certainly not any non-noble who doesn't own any dudes getting to call the shots and dictate strategy. Talented and successful warriors might well get rewarded for their service, and given land grants that would generate tons of money for them and put a large number of conscriptable peasants under their control -- and might have the ear of the king if they're known to be good at tactics -- but they don't have authority over anyone else's forces.

The politically neutral, career military guy that we think of when we hear the word "general," who has no independent power of his own but receives a paycheck from his higher-ups to command their men for them, didn't exist yet.

It's a bit of a paradigm shift, because we're used to the military as something separate, that's subordinate to civilian leadership and works in service to it, not for those to be one and the same. We're also used to a norm of strong nation-states with one centralized army, which was very much not the case throughout feudalism/manorialism -- at least in the Anglo Saxon period, power was decentralized and delegated, and being king involved a lot of herding cats wrangling your nobles, not exercising direct control. The king was the guy who could get the most other guys to back him up.

(In the same vein, early kingdoms also tended to be a patchwork of other, smaller kingdoms that retained a great deal of their own autonomy and identity. The modern nation-state that we're so used to, with a single national identity, is an astonishingly recent invention.)

Anyway, hands-down the most useful and eye-opening book I've read on the subject is Clifford J. Rogers' Soldiers Lives Throughout History: The Middle Ages. It's like $80 to buy (😭) but the pdf is on Anna's Archive, and it's invaluable. It is, essentially, a social history of medieval warfare -- most military histories focus on the politics of a particular conflict, or the technology and tactics involved, but this book is all about what life on the ground looked like. A+++ resource for anyone writing war and military logistics in a medieval (or medieval-flavored) setting.

[undefeatednils]

On Twitter I legit saw people share the Jesusland map again...

It's been 20 years, and liberals still make the same stupid suggestion about having solid Dem states join Canada.

At the same time, it also reminded me that between 1968 and 2004, Virginia was a solid GOP state, and since 2008, it has voted for the Dems consistently.

At the same time, in the last ten US elections, Ohio has voted for the winner of the election (based on the Electoral College) every time. Except 2020. When Biden won but Trump still carried the Buckeye State.

In the 2004 map meme, both states were part of "Jesusland".

The new version I saw posted included Virginia in the list of states that "should" join Canada. Which would be legitimate border gore thanks to West Virginia.

At the same time, Virginia does feel incredibly volatile, like it's Democratic majority is largely based on DC-adjacent counties that are closely connected to government jobs. In a Trump 47 world, this could easily change, as these jobs will likely be reduced in number and become less career- and merit-based, but rather based on political affiliation with the current administration.

Any breakup of the United States is incredibly unlikely, yet it's also important to consider logistics for that hypothetical.

Ages ago, someone posted a semi-joking map of their most plausible US collapse scenario. It showed the US only losing the coastal states, with the rump USA consisting of the Greater Mississippi River Basin, including the Ohio River Basin and thus the Old Northwest/modern Midwest. Based on logistics and geography, it really does feel very reasonable. Though it lacks in cohesion when looking at demographics and economics.

In my mind, unless the US somehow first decides to move its capital into the interior (s. the 19th century proposal of creating a new capital, Metropolis, on the Kentucky-Illinois border), the only parts of the East Coast that might consider leaving are the states north of the Mason-Dixon-Line.

Maryland and Virginia are too connected to the political power center of DC to have an incentive to leave. The states south of Virginia with an Atlantic coastline meanwhile follow similar-enough politia and demographic trends to the Southern states bordering the Mississippi to go their own way if Virginia doesn't.

That would leave Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine in the northeast.

Delaware and Pennsylvania deserve an asterisk due to economic concerns. Delaware's economic niche of a domestic tax haven isn't unique. South Dakota is also competing for this niche. Pennsylvania, meanwhile, as part of the so-called Blue Wall/Rust Belt, is economically very similar to Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio. But if Pennsylvania stays with the Mississippi Core, Delaware would effectively be surrounded by the rump USA. Plus, Delaware, too, is rather connected to the DC ecosystem.

Meanwhile, it should also be noted that climate change and internal migration can't be ignored either and need to be addressed.

The Great Lakes region is, together with the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, projected to "benefit" from it and to continue to enjoy high quality of life.

On the other side, parts of the Sun Belt will become less suitable for large-scale, safe habitation, and since it would become the primary center of economic and political power in such a scenario, that would be a recipe for disaster.

Anyway, this has been a geopolitics essay.

[penig]

Yes, but it's also common not to have one in a single-family residence. Usually, an en suite will be a second full bathroom off of the largest, or "master," bedroom, and is called the "master bath." Most floorplans with a master bath have another full bathroom accessed from a central hall, and some will have an additional half-bath, or "powder room," utilizing the same wet wall as the kitchen and laundry room. Two adjacent bedrooms may have a bathroom sandwiched between them and accessible from each, called a "jack-and-jill bath." Having all four kinds of bathrooms in the same house is unusual, but not unheard of, and implies a certain amount of financial security or extravagance.

Number and kind of bathrooms depend largely on the layout and history of the house, and the affluence of the household. Builders of McMansions seem to like adding bathrooms as well as bedrooms and public rooms as a point of conspicuous consumption. A multi-story house really should have at least a powder room on each floor.

My current house, which is over a century old, originally had one bathroom on the second floor at the end of the hall and accessible only from it. By the time we moved in, portions of the enclosed back porch and balcony had been turned into a powder room (on the ground floor) and two en suite bathrooms for the back bedrooms, but one of these was in very bad shape. Currently, after partial renovation, one of these en suites is our only fully-functional full bath; due to plumbing issues that present serious logistical problems, the original bath is now functionally a half-bath (with a disconnected showertub) and the second en suite has been combined with the adjacent sunroom to form the laundry/sewing room, an idiosyncratic arrangement that would suit few families but my own. The next owner may well decide to resume the en suite arrangement, or turn the whole back balcony into an enormous jack-and-jill shared by the rear bedrooms.

My husband's parents' house, which was built for them in the 70s, originally had a jack-and-jill setup for the two kids and another bathroom entered from either the hall or the parents' bedroom. When my husband was in high school, though, they finished the basement and put a bedroom with an en suite down there, ostensibly for guests, but my husband took it over. When you see a reference to an adult "living in their parents' basement" in the US, an arrangement of the sort is implied, and a basement arranged like that is fairly simple to convert into a rentable apartment, so in regions with basements it's a sensible expansion even for middle-class families, if they can bear the mortgage.

The vast majority of apartments have only one bathroom. I would not expect either a master bathroom or a powder room in any apartment with fewer than three bedrooms, unless it's in an area around a university or some other magnet for joint living arrangements. An apartment intended to be rented out to roommates might well have two bedrooms with an en suite each. Visitors would be impressed but not stunned to learn of them, and the landlord would certainly charge through the nose.

Hey real quick, I wanna check out something. I've been talking to a few friends who live in a different country and they told me it's normal for houses to have bedrooms with en-suite bathrooms over there. (Not saying where.)

[Definition in case it's needed: an en-suite bathroom is a complete bathroom, with at least a toilet, a sink, and a shower, which is accessed directly from a bedroom and is usually only used by the people who sleep in that bedroom.]

So here's my question: in your country, in normal dwellings (i.e.: houses, flats, apartments, etc, not hotels and such), is it normal to have en-suite bathrooms?

As usual, reblog for reach, and tag with your country / area and yes or no.

[hopefulvowel]

Letter to a spacefarer

Tell me spacefarer, when you look out, what do you see? What lies ahead on the cosmic horizon? Where are you headed? I think of you visiting far-flung outposts, orbiting space stations, and glimmering megalopolises. I dream of you touching pulsars, nebulas, black holes, and new stars.

Tell me spacefarer, what drives you? Why do you stay in that bubble of life surrounded by the endless void? Are you with family or are they far away? Does a corporation own your servitude, or do you fly for you? I imagine a large family onboard a generation ship excited to start their new life on another planet. I believe in an independent captain, who unites their crew when faced with overwhelming odds.

Tell me spacefarer, is your life filled with excitement? Is every week packed with new adventures? Or has your extraordinary voyage through the void become a repeatable exercise in logistics? Does your job inspire wonder or boredom? I picture your colleagues with titles like fusion technician, anti-matter analyst, or space folder. I envision them leap with excitement at their work, or dread yet another day at the same station.

Tell me spacefarer, how do you see us? Are we specs, stepping stones, or a bridge connecting humanity to the stars? Do you think of us like Verne, dreaming of an impossible submarine? Or are we the Wright brothers, only touching the surface of the inevitable?

I see a man, born in the late 14th century, standing on a dock looking at a newly built ship. He marvels at advances made to develop grander and faster ships that require fewer sailors to operate. He hears exclamations that within a decade these advancements will create new trading routes for all, a thought that intrigues and excites him. He dreams of brave explorers venturing out and imagines what they will discover by going further and faster than anyone before them. He pictures himself, aboard a huge barque, manning the helm and commanding the crew. The speed at which they travel astonishes him, enabling them to explore new lands with ease.

This man stands in his present and looks out to the horizon, the future, dreaming of what is out of reach.

Within a few centuries, whilst this man has long passed, his dream has become a reality. Ships have become so large and fast that they can move cargo from Europe to Asia and back within a year. New worlds have been found. Yet, with the wonders around them the sailors on board are no longer fascinated by the same advancements, but exhausted from the effort. They now see their role, not as brave explorers, but as employees in a repeatable exercise in logistics – often dreading the journey.

Spacefarer, you are my sailor. I look at you and marvel, even if you do not marvel at yourself. I stand here in my present, looking out at the horizon, and dream of what it must be like for you over the bend.

But, spacefarer, I do not write to you to tell you how I marvel. I write to ask you this: when you look out, what do you see? What lies ahead on the cosmic horizon? Where are you headed?

[halfbakedspuds]

One thing I'm trying very hard with Adrian and Lya's relationship is to avoid the overdramatic 'You are my heart, and for you I will die' way of writing romance. I don't mind it, but it feels a tad bit overdone.

I mean sure, they will die for eachother, there's no denying that, but their relationship isn't always this hyper-passionate baring of the soul that seems to permeate modern fiction. Sometimes it's just Adrian working out logistics forms late into the night while Lyanni is reading on the couch, both of them interspersing long, silent minutes of simply enjoying each other's company with some of the most spastic and nerdy discussions of the 27th century.

Sometimes it's Adrian seeing Lyanni passed out on their couch and quietly tossing his coat over her as a makeshift blanket, already knowing that his honour will demand he deny doing it come morning.

Sometimes it's Lyanni scooping Adrian up off his feet and carrying him to bed because he's been awake and working since Monday and Hestavi as her witness, she will force the stubborn human to rest even if she has to sit against his door all night to do it.

Sometimes it's Adrian's usually stoic composure faltering long enough for him to swear in frustration because he knows she won't hold it against him.

Sometimes it's Lyanni not bothering to put on any appearances of being fine before leaving her room after having had a particularly bad flashback, because she knows he's gone through the same hell, and will understand and try to comfort her.

Their relationship is, in this way, very different from their public life. Where they usually need to act out this facade of the almighty angel and the chosen one of the gods- living loud and large as a political tool, their private interaction tends to be a lot more subtle and far softer.

Because that's what they need. They stay together because they make eachother feel like regular people (Adrian doesn't treat her like the outcast monster her people do, and Lyanni doesn't hold him to some inhuman standard like the rest of the planet does). Their subtle interactions are, similarly, what they both want in order to be happy.

Ps: Sorry if my English is bad in this post, it has been... a bit of a day, and I'm honestly too tired to check subject-verb concord or whatever...

[play-now-my-lord]

this is an overstatement of the likely reality which is that a handful of firms with strong PR/spin departments act as news, information, and talking points sources for liberal media personalities. Most of the liberal podcast ecosystem does in fact rely on support from a bare handful of companies, and while the overt purpose of this support is logistical and technical it's silly to say that they just spontaneously decide to hew to the same line. If they're reading from the papers, they're reading second-hand press releases and wire bulletins that are handled by a few companies with specific ideologies they're pushing. Same story but if anything more concentrated with television news, mainstream news outlets on social media, etc.

Like, yeah, theory's important, but Capital or Manufacturing Consent or whatever are not actually going to tell you how the sausage is made. You have to do shoe leather for this. I came to this insight from time in journalism and direct interaction with public relations as a field, which convinced me that if anything the average leftist is not conspiratorial enough when it comes to ideological actors in public life. There have been document drops on these companies, whose names elude me, but the numbers are all there in public documents, loan applications, linkedin, etc. "Cui bono" is not sufficient - follow the money. Nine times out of ten with public figures and as many as five times out of ten with everyday people, if you dig hard enough on why people believe things there is literally a corporate backroom with communications grad students working in it that caused it. I referenced shoe leather before, and it's worth knowing that one of the most fervent desires of the American capitalist class in the 21st century is to strangle our tradition of local investigative journalism to death. It's largely succeeded, and the children of 20th century millionaires operate with a horrible privacy that their fathers could only have dreamed of. This has inculcated a sort of relative of incuriosity and learned helplessness in everyday people, where rather than relying on their own investigations or the investigations of others, they rely on broad-strokes assertions about how the world should work, on game theory, on other first-order approximations that fail to account for individual eccentricity, dedication, or caprice. I think the lack of public information about something like Elon Musk buying out Twitter would have made anyone in journalism in the 1980s shit their pants, but we just kind of accept it as the new normal and try and game out reasons the baffling show we're watching is unfolding as it is

one real genuine problem with being socialist but not reading theory is that accepting the conclusions re: hegemony and social control without understanding the premises is a one-way ticket to conspiracybrain. like if you start believing that capitalists control the media (which is true) without understanding the structural and organizational factors by which this control is both created and exerted, you start doing paranoid free-association where you believe that every liberal media personality has their own personal CIA handler and they all go to the big Consent Manufacturing Meeting every weekend where they decide what consent to manufacture

[bodaciousalliance]

The Heart of Mr Farouk, 48: Cinema

After their fantastic third date on Tuesday night, Nathan and Youssef meet up on Thursday to see a film and dinner date. But Nathan's determined to not have any 'unplanned sleepovers' on a school night, because of the morning-after logistics...

Youssef pulled up outside Nathan’s place at precisely five twenty-two p.m., and gave a beep-beep on the car’s horn. Nathan was so excited about seeing Youssef again that he was already halfway down the stairs when he heard the tooting. For their date, they’d planned an early film session, which would still give them time for a nice dinner. Given that they still had to front up for work tomorrow, there being still one more day of term left, Nathan was hoping they’d be able to stick to his injunction against ‘unplanned’ sleepovers.

Nathan got in the car. Youssef turned and flashed this beautiful beaming smile at him. It was like they hadn’t seen each other for a year and a half, instead of the day and a half it had been since Wednesday morning.

“It’s so good to see you,” said Youssef.

“Same here. It feels like I’ve waited forever for tonight to come around.”

This was the first time Nathan had been in Youssef’s car. When he’d finally taken in enough of Youseff’s handsome face, he noticed the adaptive controls. On the steering wheel was a metal ring attachment through which he anchored his hook.

“Is that how you drive?” Nathan remarked, “I’ve never seen such a thing.”

“I don’t really need it but the M.O.T. insists.”

The cinema was only a short distance away, in a large shopping complex. The place was very busy, so Youssef had to park right at the far end of the carpark. Of course, if he had a disability permit they could’ve parked right by the entrance, but he wouldn’t have any of that. This came as no surprise to Nathan.

It had been Youssef’s choice of film. They were going to see a period romance, an adaptation of a well-known nineteenth-century novel. Nathan was a little intrigued at this pick, he thought it might be down to the ‘classical’ nature of the film—Youssef seemed to have quite high tastes. He wasn’t sure, there was so much more to Youssef than what he already knew.

Nathan bought a largish tub of popcorn for them to share. Youssef had nothing against popcorn, he was fairly ambivalent about its taste. It was just too darned fiddly for him, reaching in and trying to grab a piece or two. When you had hooks, you really needed to be able to see what you were doing, which was not consistent with the darkened atmosphere of the cinema.

Nathan leant over, “Here…” he whispered, popping a piece of corn into Youssef’s mouth.

“Mmmm,” Youssef mumbled, quietly. The popcorn was rich and buttery, much more delicious than he remembered.

Nathan sent another piece of popcorn his way. And another, and another. It was all looking fairly innocent—to the other patrons—until Youssef started licking the butter off Nathan’s fingers. By this time they were starting to get so horny, they both found Nathan’s hand-feeding so erotic. It was just as well they were sitting in the dark, because their massive erections were creating really obvious tent-poles in their trousers.

Nathan dived into the popcorn again, this time producing a handful. He pressed his whole palm across Youssef’s mouth, for him to virtually inhale the popcorn in a great, satisfying mouthful.

“God! Nathan!” Youssef mumbled in ecstasy. This was a whole new dimension to the cinema-going experience for both of them.

“Shhh!” someone behind them was clearly getting annoyed.

The film continued. At some point in the middle there was a scene where, after a long absence, the heroine and her lover were reunited by a strange twist of fate. Youssef swooned. He let out an audible half-sigh, half-whimper. Settling lower into the seat, he leant against Nathan and rested his head against his shoulder.

Hmmm thought Nathan, this is why we came to this particular film. Dear Youssef, he really is a sweet, sentimental fool of a teddy bear. Nathan felt a warm glow through his whole being as his fondness for Youssef doubled at this very thought.

[princessanneftw]

Royals ignore Princess Anne at their peril

The Queen’s wisest child would be a more respected adviser than her brothers and could help secure the monarchy’s future.

By Libby Purves for The Times

One asset of the British constitution is how rarely we have to think about it. Law by law we wrangle but some old rivers flow smoothly by, turbulent only when someone chucks in a rock: parliamentary sovereignty, independent judiciary, constitutional monarchy.

The last of these is today’s preoccupation, so devout republicans turn away — you are one in five of us and may triumph one day but probably not soon. The nation still overwhelmingly votes the Queen as our most popular public figure, the Cambridges not far behind.

But at some point we will have a new monarch. HM herself has been visibly, unfussedly smoothing the path for this, with the sangfroid of a nonagenarian Christian unafraid of mortality. So if the useful system of constitutional monarchy is to carry on, elegantly representing national identity beyond politics and avoiding ghastly contests for an elected head of state, we should pay attention to how it works. Especially right now. For heredity is at monarchy’s core, and families include problems.

Of the nine nearest in line to the throne five are small children and two of the others unthinkable. The Duke of York is disgraced, barred from royal duties and deleted by charities and regiments. The Duke of Sussex has emigrated, rejecting royal duty and reticence in favour of Californian showbiz contracts and an exiguous PR role as “chief impact officer” for a coaching business.

Yet despite these two squeaky wheels and the grating matter of the senior heir having his pet charity investigated by the Met, the royal carriage creaks on. An unappreciated aspect has it that after the Prince of Wales and his son William, the renegade York and Sussex are the other “counsellors of state”: half of a quartet deemed able, under the 1937 Regency Act, to take over responsibilities from the Queen if she were incapacitated. This means granting royal assent to bills, summoning parliament, appointing judges, QCs and others.

These are of course ceremonial functions but like it or not the monarch is part of the legal machinery of British government and assumed to be always available.

It would be rare for both Charles and William to be abroad or ill at once, but all the same it is shocking to note that of four counsellors of state one is a disreputable sleaze and another a commercially compromised émigré, legally able only to hold the role because he has a “UK address” rental at Frogmore Cottage, despite considering it “unsafe” to visit Britain.

But what grates more, in a free 21st-century country, is that this group omits the Princess Royal, Anne (who held the role before William reached 21). Older than Andrew, infinitely more dedicated to Britain’s interests than Harry, the Queen’s daughter is bypassed.

Nor is she even decently placed in the line of succession. In 2013 — not before time — government ended male royal primogeniture but insultingly didn’t backdate it: only girls born after 2011 count. Thus Anne, one of the most intelligent and diligent members of the family, is only 17th in line. Ahead of her lie not only Prince William’s three children but Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor in Montecito, plus the Duke of York’s baby grandchildren Sienna Mozzi and August Brooksbank.

I think this matters because for all the flummery and Zadok-the-Priestery, a constitutional monarchy has to move gracefully with the times and be seen to belong to its century. Scandinavian and Dutch royal houses grasped this long ago, but our progress is more hesitant.

We have had female premiers, ministers and leaders in every field; the science and business logistics of vaccine creation and rollout were largely owed to brilliant women. We are not a backward sexist country. But in this royal area we are starting to look that way: a respected Queen in her Platinum Jubilee year is officially backed by counsellors including a discredited sleazy playboy and a petulant transatlantic psychobabbler, neglecting a dutiful daughter senior to both of them.

It feels particularly raw because the Princess Royal is a clean bright gem in the battered family tiara. The hardest working in actual engagements, she is also properly engaged with her charities. I have encountered her often in such contexts — I sat on a victim-support committee she chaired — and she is always sharply across any brief, from child malnutrition to lighthouses. Interviewing her about the Mission to Seafarers (she visits ships, talks to often-ignored international crews about their lives) I incautiously asked her to define her value to the charity. Eyebrows raised, she delivered a staccato “Fig-ure-head!”.

I deserved that, but the point is she totally understands both the oddity and the usefulness of royal work. Like her late father she is brisk, practical and attentive but not unfriendly. A steady blue gaze, but more stimulating than unnerving to meet. Moreover, unlike the Duke of York she understood the dangers, refused titles for her children and urged them to serious careers. In her private pursuit as a rider she won international medals and made the 1976 Olympic team; in personal life, unlike two of her brothers, she divorced and remarried unobtrusively and without public rancour.

In a less stubbornly fossilised country you would think that the 2013 revision of primogeniture would have included righting the wrong done by history to all women. You would certainly think that the role of counsellor of state would have been quietly returned to Anne when the Duke of Edinburgh died, while a sensible royal house retired Andrew and Harry from it. It might yet happen. It ought to.

[frustratedasatruar]

What do you think the palestinian people deserve?

Same thing as the Israeli people deserve, really; self-determination in their own indigenous homeland, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc and so forth.

Israel is ruled by a capitalist-paradigm representative democracy, with all the issues that entails. Bibi has been holding on to control by the skin of his teeth, using various procedural tricks and stalling tactics to avoid being removed from power, as his alt-right coalition government grows ever shakier and less popular.

Much to his aid is Hamas, which also doesn't want Bibi to leave office. A situation which, to me, reminds of Bin Ladin's work to help Bush win reelection in 2004.

Palestine is, largely, partitioned between the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. The PA's president (Mahmoud Abbas) is coming up on the second decade of his four year presidential term. He's also a Holocaust denier and general shitbag, but, y'know, its not as if the Palestinian people have the power to remove him.

Hamas is a hard-right theocratic authoritarian movement. I'm not entirely sold on describing them as fascists; I've yet to see a real breakdown of their precise policies and ideological beliefs as compared to Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, which I would consider the gold standard for resolving the question.

That said, they are a splinter group of the so-called Muslim Brotherhood, which itself directly collaborated with the Nazis. So, y'know, less than un-fascist, certainly.

Hamas's de facto secession from the rest of Palestine torpedoed the previously-in-progress normalization process, under which the Israelis had already evacuated Gaza, including the forcible relocation of all Jews out of the strip, in compliance with their end of the deal. By failing to stop Hamas from breaking with their government, the PA has failed to demonstrate their ability to keep a state together, and for-reasons-unclear-to-me-because-I'm-not-a-scholar-on-the-region, this has served to delay Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank. Presumably, this has something to do with Hamas's violent hostility to Israel, their provocations long predating the Simchat Torah Pogrom, and how Israel would not want to withdraw from the West Bank in the same way it had already done Gaza unless they could be sure that doing so would not immediately turn the whole West Bank into a giant platform for launching missiles into Israel.

I believe that the Palestinian people deserve control over their own government, something they have in neither the West Bank nor Gaza. (It is however, perhaps ironically, something that Palestinians in Israel have, at least up to the limitations of representative democracies, ie, they have as fair a say in the Israeli government as the rest of the Israelis do.).

I believe that they deserve freedom of expression, something else they do not have at present, at least not in Gaza: Hamas will literally throw you off a building if there are strong enough rumors that you might be Queer.

What does your utopia look like?

I'm an Anarchist.

So firstly, I don't believe "utopia" is achievable; rather, I believe that the moment we declare the revolution complete is the moment it fails. That the moment we say Anarchy has been achieved, and thus we need not continue to strive to bring it into being, is the moment our victory shall slip through our fingers.

That said, in the spirit of your question; I want cooperative, locally organized governments for everybody. Everybody has a say, and nobody goes without. Freedom of religion, from religion. Freedom to live, and live without fear, be it of violence, of hunger, or otherwise.

Logistically speaking, setting this up world wide will be the work of centuries. And I wouldn't be surprised if de facto city states persisted essentially indefinitely, as economic and cultural influences dictated. As long as these city states are equitably organized, with the wants and well being of their people taken care of, etc, I don't think that an otherwise-global coalition of Anarchist communes would have any need to oppose that.

The southern Levant is, frankly, one of the biggest, longest standing political snarls on earth, with oppression dynamics that echo forwards from the end of the bronze age.

Lets cut off the first third-and-change of that, so we don't need to talk about the Babylonians, the Philistines, or any of the other invaders whom have been gone since before the end of the BCEs.

But, y'know. The past isn't over. Its not even passed.

In the early second century, the Romans crushed the Bar Kochba indigenous revolt and, as a fuck-you to the Judeans, renamed the province from Judea to Syria-Palaestina. This, of course, to reference two of Klal Yisrael's historical enemies-and-conquerors; the long-extinct Hellenic Philistines, and the long-collapsed Neo-Assyrian Empire (though the Assyrian people survive to this day).

From this point, the accepted Colonial name of the region becomes "Palestine." The region is then under (Latin) Roman subjugation, which eventually bleeds into (Greek) Roman subjugation, for reasons which didn't matter if you were one of the people being oppressed by them. The Romans and the Persians are both swept out of the picture by the rising First Caliphate, which brought Arab imperialism to the area. We go through a few Caliphates, including a Shi'a one, as well as some (usually turkic) Sultanates and some Crusader States. The Mongols are there for a bit too. What they all have in common is their enmity for many-or-all of the indigenous peoples of the area; not just the Jews, but also Samaritans, Bedouins, Druze, various christian-but-not-the-right-kind-of-christian minorities, and, yes, Arabs.

These back and forth imperial powers all get swept away by the Ottoman Empire, which rules with an Iron fist for a number of centuries. Late in, they absolutely devastate the region of Palestine with various imperial mismanagement projects, including (I understand) cutting down most of the trees in the entire region for use as raw material for railroad construction.

Which, y'know, kinda fucked up the ecosystem. But the Ottomans didn't have to live there, so they didn't care.

I've seen some Kahanists talk about what a wasteland the area was when the Jewish indigenous land restoration movement got going in the late 19th century, and use this for various racist purposes against arab-palestinians. But, you'll notice from my telling, at no point in the previous all-of-human-history had arabs-who-lived-in-Palestine ever been in charge of the place. Any and all land mismanagement can only really be set at the feet of the Ottomans.

The Ottomans are on the loosing end of WWI (although, people forget, they held out longer than the other Central Powers), and perfidious Albion arranges to receive the area as an Imperial Mandate through the League of Nations. They make a lot of promises to a lot of people, and keep none of them naturally, but one of the big ones they don't keep is the original agreement as to what to do with the territory.

The British had agreed that the Mandate of Palestine was to become an independent Jewish State. Notably, this never happened. For one thing, the British unilaterally cracked off three quarters of the Mandate to become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

But also because the British worked hand-in-hand with various Nazi collaborators (recall I mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood before?) to make sure that Jews fleeing the Holocaust would not be able to come to the Mandate to escape. Because the British can only listen to the opinions of locals when its racist.

My point being that any and all simplistic readings of the region are bad and wrong. Similar to the Quechua of many parts of the Andes, European colonialism has created a very odd dynamic for the Arabs of much of SWANA, of being simultaneously colonizer and colonized. (I know you're gonna say that the Ottomans got there before the British, but technically Konstantiniyye/Istanbul is in Europe so I'm not wrong!)

How do you believe we should get there?

Anarchism starts at home. In matters of boots, defer to the bootmaker.

I don't live in SWANA.

This would be why I don't tend to talk about what happens there as much as I talk about things people in "the west" do because they feel like events in SWANA gives them an excuse! I cannot do much of anything to effect Israel or Palestine, but I can speak out against bigotry when it happens in my spaces.

I made an oath to the Thunderer himself, Friend of Humanity, that I would do just that. And Antisemitism is the largest, most pervasive form of bigotry in the world. I am Oathbound to confront this, in which ever way I can!

Frankly? I'm not doing enough. If my health permitted, I'd be doing more; there's a synagogue in my town, I know the street, and we are in deep red territory.

And when I say "red" I sure as Hel don't mean communist.

If my health improves, I should really get in contact with them; I've heard that some Jews appreciate having gentiles walk with them on their way and back, for safety. I should offer. That I haven't yet is a personal failing. Maybe I'm not close enough to really help, its not like I have a car, but I should find out for sure.

How do we get to my ideal world? By doing the best we can in every moment.

If we declare any form of bigotry, such as antisemitism, above criticism then we have already failed.

I'm not interested in gish-galloping with many of the variously-unreasonable claims you make up post of your three questions for me. I will answer this one; you point out, sort of, that I mostly post about antisemitism on my page. This is true. In no small part, this would be because, at this point, tumblr is mainly just the platform I use to peruse @the-library-alcove's posts, particularly the ones about antisemitism. I have some mutuals I'm friends with, and I don't want to loose contact with them, but tumblr is just increasingly unpleasant. I've essentially abandoned my dashboard since October 7th, and I don't have the heart to re-curate it. So, naturally, that would be the majority of the things I post about on tumblr.

This is how cause-and-effect works.

I follow some blogs that since Oct. 7th have come out in support of the Israeli genocide. However that is always implicit.

Specifically with @frustratedasatruar I have noticed that they regularly reblog posts that take actions from pro palestinian groups, which at times are not strategically well thought out, and instead of ever actually engaging with the political demands, focus on how these actions do not strategically hit the target they want to hit.

I would like to point out, to both parties involved, that a group participating in the protests against the genocide of the palestinian people blocking a performance of Fidler on the Roof is in line with Israeli state propaganda. If Israel represents and speaks for all jews world wide, if Israel is equivalent to the jewish people it makes sense to attack jewish culture and jewish performances. It is not in line with an internationalist analysis but anti-jewish hate.

I will also point out that taking issue with that action, only ever focussing on the problematic parts of a very broad movement and at the same time taking no issue with thousands of dead civilians only because they are not the right race is racism. Deeply rooted in white supremacy. And this is not hyperbolic, the tumblr user in question has literally equated calling for a humanitarian ceacefire with advocacy for killing jews for political purposes. That was ~today~, August 10th 2024.

As a Polytheist I believe that everyone should have the right to worship whatever god(s) and in whatever way they like as long as it does not inhibit the freedom of others. As a society we should encourage and help people to find community in that. I also believe that people have the right to live in peace and dignity. The palestinian christians, muslims, atheists or, yes, polytheists in Gaza are mostly refugees from the rest of palestine. Homes forcefully taken from them, many with dead families. When you are targeted as a group, when your rights are stripped away for who you are you must act as a group and you must do so with all it takes. Be it for example as a queer person, a woman, a religious minority or as a palestinian.

That is why I repost pro palestinian content on this blog.

@frustratedasatruar What do you think the palestinian people deserve? What does your utopia look like? How do you believe we should get there? I genuinely hope I get an answer from you. Because otherwise I really liked your blog. Since october it is almost exclusively pro-Israeli propaganda.

[warsofasoiaf]

Do you think old school thinkers, who happen to be left leaning, get more of a pass for problematic thought than right leanings ones? Specifically wondering why Karl Marx is still widely read and respected despite problematic views on the Jewish People and the British conquest of India, but also Che Guevara

Obligatory I hate the left-right political spectrum caveat. I hate ideas and people being categorized on it. It's simplistic, actively working to deny understanding and greater comprehension. But I've had a little whiskey, so who gives a shit now?

If you're talking about academia, yes. Academia has been loathe to call out Karl Marx for his anti-Semitism. It's not just the anti-Semitism though; we've had extensive time with which to see Marx's predictions, the ones which asserted actual data figures that we can measure like the rate of profit to fall over time, have failed to materialize. At this point, Marx is exclusively junk philosophy and pseudoscience; it has no place in rational theory, but it's still there. Chomsky is dismissed for his largely bogus political takes and genocide denial, but still held up as a serious academic even in his field, despite the numerous failures in the Propaganda Model (though it has some value in the conceptual level). Now, this might be me, but I see the failures of Manufacturing Consent as part of a long-running tradition of conspiracy theories within left-wing movements far older than Chomsky that are easily debunked (I particularly hate the "First Red Scare killed the American socialist movement" myth). I hope one day academia will engage with its blind spots and include the Soviet Union in its examination of colonial studies and 20th century authoritarianism, or hold its treasured thinkers to the same standards, but I won't hold my breath. Academics do not take kindly to non-academics thinking that they are wrong.

That's academia, though, America outside of colleges don't really listen to Marx at all - even American left-wing movements these days cleave closer to a European social democratic model and plenty of left-wing students don't actually read Marx, they quote him but haven't actually went through his books (some have, and sadly, they are usually quite authoritarian). In that sense, it's all about who evaluates it. If you look to other places, you see them engage in a similarly uncritical fashion with their own pet theories that similarly flatter the tribe. So, I think that's less of a function of the left-right political spectrum and more of a function of a political interpretation of history that promotes the in-group as a historical protagonist. It is cringe to see someone espousing the horrors of racism from someone wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt, but it's also cringe to see someone say "America means freedom," without even the barest hint of recognition that the United States brutalized blacks, Native Americans, etc. to the point where they could rightly say that America took great pains to keep them out of the American Dream and reacted violently when they succeeded anyway - consider actions like the Osage murders or the Tulsa massacre; it was not enough to keep minorities out of prosperity but to violently pull it from them when they succeeded via theft, arson, and murder. Howard Zinn is a polemicist writing bullshit history, but so were plenty of other textbooks in the 1950's. The Trumpist movement largely gives life to "Stop the Steal" absent all empirical, logical, and logistical evidence, rather than accept that Trump just fucking lost under the same rules that he won in 2016. They'd rather establish an autocrat than realize that maybe, just maybe, that people just told them that they didn't want them in charge, that he failed to deliver and the American public decided for something else - it's the same energy that animates Chomsky's writings in the 1980's. Stupidity and tribalism are omni-partisan; it's in the nature of tribal movements to glorify the tribe by denigrating others outside the tribe. And given how easy it is, particularly in liberal societies given the liberal paradox (the real one, not the fallacious one proposed by Amartya Sen), to fall into tribal enclavism, I don't think that's changing any time soon.

Thanks for the question, Cle-Guy.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[theme-park-concepts]

You know I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone ask the question, let alone try to answer it, a question that should be at the core of theme park design.

Why rides?

Rides have been at the core of theme park design for nearly a century, they're my favorite part, I daresay the favorite part for most people that go, but like really why use rides to tell stories? There's a lot of ways to tell stories, and if you really care about storytelling you should really be invested in finding the best medium for the message. And notably not all theme parks choose to use rides. Puy du Fou famously is only large spectacular shows and walkthroughs. Things you'll also find in theme parks all over.

So why rides? I think the lazy answer is that that's what's expected from theme parks. Because of the prototype laid out by Disneyland and the lineage of amusement parks.

So another argument would be throughput. I think this is a much better argument, and basically draws its lineage from worlds fairs. If you're going to make a show, or an exhibit even, and you want to have thousands and thousands of people see it per day - way more than could fit in a traditional theatre or who would linger in a museum...a ride system is a great way to do it. It's literally the same reason factories have assembly lines, thanks Henry Ford 👀. Of course you could also just build giant theaters that sit thousands and thousands of guests - like Puy du fou. But those shows become necessarily grand. there's a lot of reasons to do it that way, longer show times for one. But that also could lead to longer wait times, or at least a static wait, and not every story wants to be a grand spectacle. Though interested most rides turn out to be. A ride can get you a show that's told relatively intimately while being able to show it to a huge audience. Maybe intimate isn't the right word - perhaps personal is better. A ride can tell a story that's just for you or at max a couple dozen other people.

So throughput and personal connection are reasons. What else? I think the other element has to be visceral experience. Motion and movement are an additional source of story and emotion that no other medium has access to. Books don't have background music (audiobooks excepted), movies and theatre do. It's an extra dimension of storytelling that we find almost essential these days. Movement is another. Is it essential? I don't think as many people would say it is, but it certainly can be for certain stories. If you're story is about flight, feeling the flight is kind of inextricable. Though at the moment I'd say most people expect movement to be diegetic to the story. Non-diegetic movement isn't something we've seen a lot of, baring just the physical logistics of a moving omnimover etc.

So it would seem the main reason to build a ride is to tell personal stories, with high throughput, and/or that ideally benefit from the use of physical body motion/sensations to tell it. Are there other reasons? Probably. What do you think they are?

[licncourt]

Why did Lestat decide to stay with a closeted, homophobic, and frankly unproductive Louis while being an 'out & proud' bisexual guy? Atleast, Nicki embraced it all 'with pride' if only to spite God (the courage counts). He was ambitious and create 'goodness' out of it. He would also have an impressive academic background which is more than 'reading pretentious books'. How did all of these translate into Louis as 'the chosen one'?

Alright, so this ask has been in my inbox a little while mainly because some of the implications really bother me, as well as other assumptions seeming to directly contradict canon. I have no idea if this ask is in good faith or not, but I'm going to go through it and break down what my issue is.

First of all, I'm going to start by saying that I would not consider Nicki or Lestat to be "out". Lestat never seems to struggle with any shame over his orientation, but he is very much closeted. He and Nicki never give any indication of being public about the nature of their relationship, and why would they? France was less severe in its legal treatment of sodomy than most other places, but the social penalties would've been extremely severe. Being confident in your sexuality =/= out.

As for Nicki, I would disagree that "the courage counts" when what he's essentially doing to fully embracing his internalized homophobia to the most extreme extent. What he's doing is self harm of a spiritual type. Hurting himself and Lestat with his acknowledgment of his orientation is very sad and unfortunate more than it is courageous. It's also rather hurtful to suggest that someone is objectively better than another if they use their pain to make art ("goodness"). No one is obligated to make their suffering something for consumption.

Regarding the fact that Louis is/was closeted and dealing with internalized homophobia...I really dislike the implications here. Louis was obviously extremely ashamed of his orientation and had no desire to share it publicly. And why on Earth would he feel any other way?

He grew up in the 18th century in a Catholic area where he would have been at best shunned from his community and family and at worst killed if he was outed. A gay person who doesn't feel safe or ready to come out is just as deserving of love as someone who is. It's not a moral failing or a strike against them as a person. Besides, even if Louis felt exactly the same as Lestat, there's no way they would've been out advertising it any more than Lestat and Nicki because of sheer logistics.

As far as being "unproductive", I mean, yeah. But Lestat was certainly not a productive member of society either. By definition, vampires are leeches. And Louis and Lestat are wealthy landlords who literally feed on humans. They spent seventy years doing absolutely nothing of value. If Louis is unproductive, Lestat is equally so, if not more because at least Louis ran the household and business.

Finally, the academic background is a strange thing to bring up. There's no indication that this is something that matters to Lestat in a partner. He himself is uneducated in the formal sense and it doesn't ever appear to be something that attracts him to Louis or Nicki. And if we ARE comparing (which there's no reason to do, Nicki and Louis are both very intelligent), I disagree with your assessment. Nicki was from a rural family and attended a few months of schooling at the Sorbonne for law. Impressive, but he was ultimately a drop out who never wanted to be there in the first place.

Louis is from a very wealthy family nearby a large city. We don't know if he attended college (it's possible, maybe unlikely), but he would've had private tutors all his life and possibly something like an elite boarding school education. And yes, reading is not formal education, but he clearly cares about and enjoys learning and I don't think what he accomplished on his own should be discounted as just "pretentious books".

At the end of the day, love isn't determined by a pros and cons list or what looks good on paper. Louis is the "chosen one" because Lestat loves him. Utimately, they're compatible, probably more than Lestat and Nicolas (I've talked about why here and here) and it works. Personally, I'm glad love doesn't work on a rational system like the one being described in the ask. Where would we all be if it did?

[tundrainafrica]

Hi, I love your meta posts.One thing that I have been thinking about since the uprising arc, was Hange Erwin's first choice as his successor? Some people(pro rumbling gang) think that they were incompetent as fuck as the commander, couldn't stop the formation of the jaegerist faction and provide any solution for centuries old eldian hate etc. While I agree that it was the role they didn't even ask for in the first place and they had too much on their plate, (1)

(2) I still think that they did the best and no one else could've done better. But I am still confused. Erwin probably knew that politics weren't Hange's forte, and only chose them because other vets were dead(Maybe Mike was the first choice) but at the same time he asked Hange to call the shots for him even when Mike and others were still alive( 57th expedition,Stohess Raid,start of COTT arc) which makes me think that Hange was the first choice. So, What is your take on this? Thank you!

---------------------------------------ANSWER---------------------------------------------------

Hello Anon, 

As always, it’s great to hear that people enjoy my internal monologues which can’t seem to get out because nobody that lives close proximity to me irl actually sees Levihan as a romantic couple. 

But anyway, enough about me. 

One thing that I have been thinking about since the uprising arc, was Hange Erwin's first choice as his successor? 

To answer your first question… YES. YES. AND YES. 

Okay first things first, let us assess Erwin’s other options for successor: 

We assume Erwin gets his successor from among the squad leaders, captains and team leaders (because who gets them from the rookies??)  which gives us: Levi, Hange, Lauda, Rashad, Dirk, Marlene, Klaus, Mike, Darius, Dita

By the time Erwin had to start thinking of a new successor though, Mike, Darius, Dita were dead so let’s cut down the list. 

Levi, Hange, Lauda, Rashad, Dirk, Marlene, Klaus.

Levi and Hange have always been considered the strongest ones in the survey corps. I actually suspect that the rest of the cast mentioned above were only raised to squad leader status in take back wall Maria because the other leaders were dead at that point. 

So the only two in contention for the commander position where Levi and Hange. But really, how is this a competition? Levi has always been more fit for handling a small squad and although Levi is humanity’s strongest soldier, he doesn’ have the eye for large scale and long term strategy, logistics, paperwork and the knack for politicking that Hange has. That’s why from the start Levi wasn’t a squad leader, he was a special operations squad captain. 

Levi had a squad of select people, at the start of the show it was only four. Hange was handling a lot more people than Levi. And if you look at the way Hange and Levi both go about combat it’s completely different. 

For example, how do they go about subduing the female titan? For Levi it’s *slash slash slash” and for Hange, she likes to prepare traps, she likes to study habits, find weaknesses and attack them. I like to suspect that Levi isn’t particularly adept with long term planning because he’s just so strong and fast he can easily just slash away his problems within seconds so really who needs long term planning when they’re humanity’s fastest and strongest soldier.

And we never see how Levi handles logistics, politicking and office work but I suspect Levi did not have the same formal education Erwin and Hange had which puts him leagues behind both of them in that field. Which makes Hange, who was shown to be adept with documentation (based on research and the way she goes about reports in the Ilse’s notebook OVA) and politicking (with how she handled the Flegel Reeves issue) the most suitable person to lead among who was left.  

If Mike, Darius and Dita though lived would they have been a better choice?

Okay, I’m gonna put Darius and Dita out of the equation because they weren’t one of the more notable soldiers from the start. 

Let’s consider Mike.

Erwin probably knew that politics weren't Hange's forte, and only chose them because other vets were dead (Maybe Mike was the first choice).

As mentioned above, I believe Hange knows her way around politics and diplomacy with the way she considered manipulating the media to help Flegel Reeve’s case. And the way to getting the technology in Paradis to catch up to the outside world in four years? Hange for sure needed some diplomacy and politicking skills for that so I don’t agree with the fact that Hange didn’t have those skills. 

Between Mike and Hange, I still think Hange would have been the first choice. Mike had two notable characteristics about him, for one he was strong combat wise, he had a good sense of smell. He basically had some of Levi’s skill and what he lacks in combat compared to levi, he makes up with leadership skill.

Hange though had more than that. She had the leadership skill (she leads a whole squad too), she has research skills, analysis skills, strategy, politicking and she’s not shoddy in the battle field either. I made a meta on Hange’s logistics skills and her contributions to battle in this ask. You can check that ask out for the details. Sure Mike had that and although he is considered much better than Hange in battle (I mean he is deemed the second strongest next to Levi), Hange makes up with her shortcomings in combat with the fact that she beats Mike by miles with her brains. 

In the ask, I linked, I talked about the fact that missions wouldn’t happen without Hange, she does all the behind the scenes dirty work which nobody really cares about. Hange was the one who figured out how to get all those barrels up to the forest for when they capture the female titan. Hange plans the bases which they were setting up and the supply lines all the way until Wall Maria. There are huge amounts of multi tasking, strategy and thinking involved in all of that. You might even say that these are types of thinking and analysis even Erwin himself wouldn’t have been able to do. 

And the raid of Marley which recently just showed in the anime is another testament to the type of role Hange tends to play on the field. Sending paratroopers to the field (like how they sent the Paradis soldiers to Marley) was a fairly common tactic in World War I  World War II but is generally dangerous for the paratroopers in question because the general strategy for the enemy here is the barricade all the exits (which they did in the show.) 

Hange’s job then was to make sure they get everyone safely back which explains the lights, the blimp and of course Armin’s explosion. That plan to save the lives of all the paratroopers was implied to have been taught up in the anime by Armin but I think this plan to recover all the soldiers that way was made by both Hange and Armin and the detail on the lights, possibly something Hange pointed out because she has always been good in logistics.

Some people(pro rumbling gang) think that they were incompetent as fuck as the commander, couldn't stop the formation of the jaegerist faction and provide any solution for centuries old eldian hate etc. While I agree that it was the role they didn't even ask for in the first place and they had too much on their plate. 

And this just gets to me… Hange? Incompetent as fuck? 

The Paradis that opened up was a completely new world. And the situation required a commander who is good in logistics, strategy, diplomacy and politicking and personally I believe Hange was perfect for the role. 

She would have done a better job than Erwin and even if Erwin did live, Hange would have played an incredibly big part and she probably would have been Erwin’s right hand man here. Because the circumstances which came after Paradis required someone as well who was research and technology-savy on top of all that i mentioned above given that they were building railways, adapting blimps, improving their ODM gear and of course their weapons and who has been improving their weapons since the start? HANGE (ehem ehem thunder spear)

So Hange was the perfect commander given the circumstances

And did you see how badly they curbstomped Marley in the latest episode given all the improvements to their armor, their gay and their plans (with the blimp etc.) I don’t think I even need to talk much about how good of a job Hange did leading them with that episode so fresh in everyone’s mind. 

But since a lot of antis want to bring up Hange’s shortcomings as commander, let’s address them. 

“couldn't stop the formation of the jaegerist faction and provide any solution for centuries old eldian hate etc. etc.”

Personally, I only see one ‘shortcoming’/’mistake’ Hange made which might have led to the fatal consequences above. 

Hange was too much more of a parental figure than Erwin to the people under her. She didn’t demand respect or exude authority the way Erwin did. Despite being the commander, she talked to the people under her like equals, she made her vulnerabilities, her dreams, her aspirations and her humanity all the more known to the people around her. 

Look at how she approaches Eren (even after all the bullshit he did). 

I’m sure Hange approaches all of her subordinates the same way. She approached them like her own children. She wanted them to open up to her. And this is fairly obvious also in the differences of their reactions when Hange died vs how Erwin died. 

When Erwin died, the people who mourned where Hange and Levi who had seen Erwin as more of a friend compared to everyone else right?

How did the 104th cadets react when Hange died?

You can argue I guess that they have known Hange for longer, of course they would mourn her like that? 

But even beyond the examples above, we have seen how Hange approaches the cadets and her subordinates. Hange was definitely more open, she definitely tried to get to know everyone, even as squad leader, among Miche, Erwin, Levi and her, Hange has always been the most approachable and I don’t find it completely out of character that she carried that part of her personality all the way until commander as seen above by how she talked to Eren and even more recently. 

How she talked to Onyakopon and Armin on the blimp

I’m counting on you Onyakopon. And even with how Onyakopon approaches Hange, you can see he sees her more than just a commander to respect. 

You came up with such a reckless plan? Were you possessed by Erwin’s ghost or something? 

This might fall under YMMV analysis already but I honestly think the two interactions above were very parental and I don’t think Erwin would have interacted with Onyakopon or Armin similarly in those two situations. Hange is much more touchy than Erwin was and with how she interacted with Armin here, she sounded like a mother lecturing their kid. 

Hange’s approach to leadership was more parental. Is that a short coming? 

Maybe,Hange deciding to approach her subordinates from a position of power as a parental figure more than a commander was a mistake. Maybe that’s one reason why the jaegerist faction manage to form under her and betray her. Maybe they were just a little too radical and were a little too not scared of Hange and hung over Eren to have thought otherwise. 

Maybe Eren just exuded more power, fear authority than Hange and the people who preferred that type of leader chose to side with Eren. 

But personally, I don’t even think Hange deciding to approach her position of power like this is a short-coming at all. In another world maybe where Eren hadn’t gone crazy and inspired such a faction, maybe Hange’s approach to leadership would have worked to unite everyone instead. 

But politics and opposing factions exist anywhere and I believe in any organization, these types of factions and these types of rebellions are bound to happen because that’s how humans are.

Hange was the best one for the job. Hange did her best. She did a great job. She was a great commander and if she weren’t a great commander, I’m sure these subordinates under her wouldn’t have been mourning her death like this. 

The cruel truth was... Hange just couldn’t please everyone. Hange was a parent to her cadets, she trusted Eren until the last minute, wanted to try to understand him. 

And she was betrayed. Eren rallied his own soldiers with his own brand of leadership which lead to a chain of events which were eventually traced back to ‘Hange being a shitty leader.’

So many things were just happening at once and suddenly everyone decides to blame her “since she’s in a position of power” 

Like yo, blame eren. The only mistake Hange ever made was trying to see the humanity in Eren.