#mundanity that is just that much more meaningful because of the people it represents and the joys of creation and art

[chisatowo]

The fact that this event just so perfectly slots in and parallels like all of my Mafuyu and Ena hcs and au stuff just like. Fucking hell sekai just break into my house and beat me to death won't you

[ladyiristheenchantress]

Working with Earth

Welcome to the fourth part of my elemental series! Today we will explore some aspects of working with earth like offerings, devotional activities, common lessons, aspects, and more! With all that said lets get started!

To preface: I am a devotee to water itself, I am a west witch practioner which means I work within the domain of water, the past, divination, and psyche! I also am a general elemental practioner and have experience working with all of the elements and their aspects!

What is working with Earth like?

Per usual: Things can depend on gnosis and the cultural lens we are looking at, however some things are consistent! In general earth is considered a constant force, something you can always tap into because you are always within it, on it, or in the case of astronauts near it. Earth represents consistency, slow but meaningful changes, and perseverance. Earth doesnt have a gender (same with all the elements) so asking during a working relationship can be a great way to bond! In general, Earth is primordial being the very first to be created even if it was just a ball of flames and liquid stone. Earth is considered but also not considered to be the first element to house life! People debate if it was water with the primordial soup or if it was earth giving water a space. However it is clear earth is a major life giver regardless. Earth has many aspects from rot, biomes, to just pure grounding energy, and working results change depending on who you are interacting with.

Some people work with earth as a whole, and we see this with the 'mother nature' archetype! This energy tends to be balanced, loving, and full of trial and error. Another aspect may be with specific biomes like navigating loneliness and introspection with desert, or managing your energy levels with rainforest! In any case, earth has major emphasis on love, grounding forces, but also cycles. All energy you use earth will eventually take back from the living. In this case, earths personality is not set in stone, often times changing and reflecting specific nuances. Another important thing to note is earth has frequently been described as both powerful but also sometimes a push over. We can observe this in mundane life with the invention of GMO's, pollution, etc. Earth allows us humans to do a lot of awful things to earths natural systems (evolution, balancing, etc) however Life will always find a way. It is important to remember you are an animal like any other deer, fish, or bear! Respect the earth as it speaks to you. Earth is a lot more direct because of the heavier role it plays on us. Patience is the best virtue when interacting with earth.

UPG: Earth is an extremely kind spirit to commune with, often happy to speak directly to all of its creatures. Earth usually presents 'slow burn' lessons usually being carried out over seasons, years, or decades. Working with earth is all about taking things one step at a time and learning indirectly not what it means to be human but what it means to be animal. Earth is all about establishing your place within the world, and encouraging you to leave this place better than you found it. Earth represents the present, pausing, and setting up long term goals no matter the weather or struggles we face. Its about unity and learning to love others with the short mark we leave on our home.

A thing to note is earth has a common 'womb' and 'mother' element often being nicknamed mother nature, dirt to life, etc! Most cultures observe earth to be the ultimate womb because of our history. Compared to all the elements earth has the heaviest association to life and birth, just as much as it does death and recycling. This has lead to the darker element of 'rot' being an aspect taking. Rotting and Decay takes time, much like all things.

What are common offerings?

Most people place altars to earth by windows, on the ground floor, and by living rooms! Earth tends to enjoy pretty much all offerings because it not only can represent advancement but also returning to roots. However: There is heavy emphasis on ethical offerings like with crystals, locally sourced items, and growth. So I would hold off leaving a red bull on the altar for now. Earth enjoys going place, so travel altars, smaller altars, or collapsible ones are a great choice! Dont feel limited to one point in your home

In earths case, there is heavy emphasis on longevity! So common offerings usually include dusting and cleaning, taking care of a plant, and things that may require repetition like preparing a meal or drinking water. In my water post I talk about net positive, neutral, and negative offerings and earth is no different. A lot of workings can be done outdoors in forests, prairies, and more. Make sure you are researching what hurts flora and fauna before you go out, for example: Leave the salt at home! Salt can hurt the salinity of the soil and hinder growth.

Some ideas include hosting forest or highway clean ups, going on hikes and nature walks, collecting flowers or just communing with nature, foraging, helping others, and getting crafty!

What are the correspondences?

Crystals - Smokey Quartz, Amazonite, Obsidian, Jasper, Malachite, Aragonite, Super Seven, Moldavite, Unakite, and Septarian Herbs - Dandelion root, Hawthorn, Linden, Oak, Red clover, wood sorrel, Rasberry Leaf, Food plants (nuts, berries, gourds, etc), Pacholi, Ivy, Fern Colors - Green, Brown, Gold Energy Centers - Root, Sacral Zodiacs - Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn Tools - Terracotta pots, Coins, Plants, Plates, Crafts Scents - Musk, Soil, Moss

Resources:

Tip Jar

[not-poignant]

hello! thank you for replying to my ask abt finding the enthusiastic consent post. i’d like to ask about your approach towards writing death? whether it’s evolved over the years? the representation of death in media vs your own preferred version in fiction. also! what does death mean to ash glashtyn?

Hi anon!

Those are some huge questions, and I definitely can't answer them all in a lot of detail otherwise I'd be writing a 6,000 word post. So I think we need a cliff notes version or something.

I suppose I'd first say there's a lot of different kinds of deaths, and a lot of different ways to feel about it. So I can't give you a neat answer because my approach to writing death is 'treat every situation as unique' and not some kind of unified approach?

I don't even treat it with the same level of respect every time, depending on whether the death is a character we've never gotten to know, vs. if it is one we have, vs. (in the case of murder) how the character doing the character feels about it, vs. whether the character dying is a villain or a hero or neither. How I approach Augus hunting vs. Gwyn killing the otterkind family vs. Mikkel dying were all extremely different. There's no...similarities between them re: how I thought about them!

Therefore, I don't know whether that's something that's evolved over the years. The fact is, I don't sit there thinking 'what's my approach to writing death' before writing it, I just write it. I know I'm influenced by the many books I've read and philosophies I've read and more, but I don't have rules about it or anything like that. I just try and write it with the weight it deserves in the moment. Sometimes, that's no weight at all. Sometimes it's with a great deal of lasting gravitas. Death is ordinary and profound depending on who it's impacting, why, and how folks are thinking about it. And that's the same as with everything ordinary and profound (like sex, and people being born, and everything in between).

the representation of death in media vs your own preferred version in fiction

Tbh idk! There is no unified, universal way of 'representing death in the media.' It changes! It changes within the same series! How Scrubs wrote death in its media depended on the characters being impacted and the point of it! Sometimes it was comical and mundane, sometimes it would have you weeping, there's no such thing as a unified representation of 'death in the media' and I don't have a 'preferred version' in fiction. I have written mundane death, unimportant death, ugly death, grotesque death, meaningful death, profound death. And as with everything, it just depends on what that part of the story calls for.

I would also say quite honestly I don't really care about how I represent it that much. Like, I care as much about it as I do about any part of my writing. It's not a core reason behind why I write and it's not crucial or fundamental or really important in many of my stories. Like, it's not that 'I don't care' - but I'm not researching death and the symbolism of death the way I'm researching trauma and trauma recovery, anon. I have only ever bought one book on death. I have bought over 50 on trauma.

(For those curious about death narratives in general, I highly, highly recommend the series Six Feet Under, which was quite ahead of its time across a few different areas, but is one of the best shows - hands down - for the many different ways we can look at death, and the many different things it can mean to us, from nothing, to everything).

what does death mean to ash glashtyn?

You're not gonna like this anon, because my answer is going to be 'see above.'

As in, it depends! How Ash feels about his own death changes over time. How he feels about the deaths of others depends on who it is that's dying, and his connection to that person, and that will also not be static and going to change over time!

I don't actually know of anyone who always sees death the same way, of every person, all the time, always. That doesn't mean people like that aren't out there! But generally speaking how someone feels about the death of say, weeds they're pulling out of the garden, is going to be very different to their own death, the concept of death, and the death of their loved ones. We are often negotiating our relationship with death, from the moments we don't negotiate it at all because we deem the death/s insignificant (people killing cockroaches come to mind, or people not thinking about the creatures in their back garden dying every second), to the moments we deem it significant because of the person's closeness to the person or creature (or plant or object) that has died.

The ordinary/profound things in life just require a natural fluidity, because they're not static even though they're ever-present. I can't pin any single thing down on the page, anon, because there are an infinite number of ways to respond to and think about death, and an infinite number of ways for the mass media to conceptualise it, and for folks like me to write it.

I have no rules, I have no single approach. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. It's...very...not something I can pin down, I'm afraid!

[onlyonewoman]

I enjoy listening to reddit stories from time to time, especially Mark Narrations, Markee and Vincey on Youtube. It’s interesting, sometimes quite fun and other times sad. With that being said, I’m REALLY tired of people calling everything from a messy divorce or a huge argument, to a shitty but not overly dangerous accident TRAUMA. Like, yes, I understand different people will be more or less affected than others from shitty things and yes, something that appears mundane to some people might be real hardships to others. But come on. Sometimes bad shit happens that yes, feel awful, but you wouldn’t compare it to, for example, a sudden death of a child or partner, or a life/death situation where you genuinly didn’t know if you would survive (shortterm OR longterm), a severe illness or sexual abuse. Someone, even if it’s a family member, telling you that you’re ugly or stupid, is really shitty behavior that should be called out, but it’s not a trauma. Not everyone having a less than ideal childhood suffers from trauma due to it and by throwing that word around like it can be applied to any shitty misfortune is downplaying what the word is supposed to represent. And speaking of words that people overuse in inappropriate situations: Abuse. I love listening to the reddit channels but for the love of therapy and dictionaries, someone lashing out from stress on occasion, isn’t an abuser. Someone not understanding you perfectly and therefor perhaps not agreeing with your take on the situation, isn’t abusive. You not being able to know the intention behind someone’s choice of words or actions, is not automatically a sign of abuse. More examples: Love bombing: that’s a term used to describe the way a cult uses compliments and affection to lure a new recruit in - not a word to throw at anyone being a bit too much with showing affection in general. Gaslighting: this is when someone intentionally trying to make you doubt your own experiences, your own thoughts and feelings - it’s not the same as someone having a completely different take on the same situation. Narcissism: OH MY GOD, JUST FUCKING DON’T! I have been friends with people who really displayed professionally diagnosed narcissism and I want to fucking scream whenever some 20-25 something redditor throws this label around like it’s on sale. Being on the narcissistic spectrum can be displayed in several different ways, but one crucial point is lacking in the ability to develop deep, meaningful relationships. SOMEONE SHOWING A REALLY SELFISH SIDE SOMETIMES DOESN’T MAKE THEM QUALIFIED FOR A SERIOUS PERSONALITY DISORDER! While I applaud people being more and more comfortable with discussing and opening up about mental problems of different kind, I wanna scream into the void whenever I read or hear some 25~ish redditor use a whole ass dictionary of psychiatric terms in a precocious tone, while being about as black and white about the situation as any psychiatry professional would instantly know is the LEAST appropriate way to address it. And lastly: no professional psychiatric doc/nurse or therapist would DREAM of putting clinical labels on someone that isn’t even their patient. You don’t sound serious or educated, empathic, kind or smart by calling anything shitty on Earth trauma and it certainly does no service to those who truly suffer from them. My sister was forced out of the hospital room by her 11-year-old daughter’s doctor because they knew she’d otherwise witness her only daughter die. KNOWING her daughter was dying, was trauma. HAVING TO PLAN her only child’s funeral, was trauma. Me, grieving on a distance due to covid was horrible as hell, yes, but I wouldn’t call it outright trauma. It was horrendous and awful and shitty and the worst period of my life, but I wasn’t the one going through the actual trauma. My sister and her husband were. So no, your parents’ messy but normal divorce wasn’t trauma. Your older sibling having the shitties temper in their teens, wasn’t abuse. And people trying to look from the outside without agreeing with your feelings 100%, aren’t invalidating you or gaslighting or manipulating you. Sometimes you just NEED to use a bit lighter WORDS.

[cube-cumb3r]

punishments vs. natural consequences

/rp, ive been thinking a lot about the difference between punishments and natural consequences in the context of the dream smp story. i see talk about characters learning their lesson and needing to face consequences and i think the easiest examples i can start with is tommy.

tommy is interesting to talk about on this topic because he is generally disproportionally punished for the things he does, and yet i think there's an argument to be made that he sometimes doesn't "learn his lesson", right? you know, it's almost as if him not ever getting to face the natural consequences of his actions, never getting to see for himself how they affect people, and instead getting disproportionally punished for it, will only make him come to the conclusion that "i am being unfairly punished" and not "maybe the thing i did was hurtful".

exile is the most obvious example of this. people seem baffled that something as harsh as exile didn't make him "learn his lesson".

if the lesson was supposed to be "people put time and love into their builds, and messing with them might hurt their feelings" then how is being isolated from his friends alone on a beach in the middle of nowhere gonna make him come to that conclusion? instead, something that would make him come to that conclusion is perhaps seeing how his actions actually affect people, seeing people get feel hurt when their build is damaged and being upset with him, but that's not what happened. george never got to confront tommy about it himself, and dream made the decision to exile tommy on george's behalf. [really good post breaking the exile conflict down from georges pov btw]

if the lesson was supposed to be "being reckless while being a representative of a whole nation is selfish because youre putting other people in danger" he's not gonna learn that either, because he can clearly see in front of it how manufactured the trolley problem in question actually was [relevant joke post], he could clearly see that it was dream who had cornered the new lmanburg cabinet, it was dream who had threatened war, it was dream who demanded tommy to be exiled, all over something so mundane that he might not even have realized was hurtful to george. (see paragraph above). he will think "it's not me putting the nation in danger, it's dream", and the only lesson he could've possibly learnt is "i am being unfairly punished."

and thats just the mere action of exiling tommy, not even bringing into everything that happened afterwards during exile. we don't even have to open that can of worms to make this argument.

and i'd even go so far as to argue, the intent of the punishments have never been to teach him anything meaningful in the first place anyway, it's just to get him to stop. it's not about tommy reconsidering the way his actions may affect others, it's not about internalizing the idea other people are hurt by his actions and don't like him nor respect him as a direct consequence of that, it's just about punishing him until he stops. which will never work! he's stubborn and he doesn't like being bossed around, as long as he himself doesn't see his own actions as hurtful, he'll fight back, he'll escape, he won't listen, why should he? he's being unfairly punished after all.

on the other hand, the simple natural consequence of People Just Thinking Hes An Asshole could be enough for him to question himself and come to the simple conclusion that "maybe the thing i did was hurtful", and "maybe if im not mean to people, they'll will respect me more". perfect example of this is this little interaction with ponk back in s1, (...which i've been waiting for an excuse to shove into an essay because i like it so much...)

Sapnap: Ponk, I need you to make sure he doesn’t go anywhere. I’mma go look for the other two suspects.

Ponk: Don’t leave me with him!

Sapnap: He’s on half a heart, Ponk. You got him, right?

Ponk: Yeah, he’s mean!

Sapnap: Alright officer, well- you-

Tommy: What- Did you get upset by my- by my…-

[...]

Ponk: Why’d you always have to be so mean, Tommy?

Tommy: How am I mean- you’ve li- You’ve imprisoned me, Ponk!

Ponk: All you do is shout!

Tommy: That’s not true, I’m talking at quite the reasonable tone.

Ponk: Which is kinda scary for me, ‘cause you’re probably planning something!

Tommy: When have I ever planned anything, that’s gone successfully? Except the other war that I won the other day.

Ponk: True. So you are a veteran at this?

Tommy: True! That’s very true.

Ponk: I like this side of Tommy.

Tommy: Yeah, I like it too! You know what, Ponk?- [overlapping]

Ponk: Keep this up and I might- I might do something- [overlapping]

Tommy: [overlapping] -We’re actually becoming good friends!

Ponk: Yeah!

Tommy: What, so you’re my friend?

Ponk: Maybe!

[...]

Tommy: And hey man, listen, I’m fine with you keeping your tower there, as long as you’re fine with me having a ‘this is property of Tommyinnit’ sign on the front. And even though it isn’t! But just so, just so I can feel like it is, is that cool with you?

Ponk: Okay. [overlapping]

Tommy: [overlapping] And I’m totally fine with it! [makes displeased look at the camera.]

Ponk: Yes.

Tommy: Awesome.

Ponk: I’m good with that.

[longer transcription here, also it's just a cute little clip go watch it]

it's easy to miss, it's an obscure little scene in early s1, ponk thinking he's mean, because he is. tommy making a compromise, that he maybe isnt even completely happy with, just to resolve their current conflict. and realizing that just being nice to someone will make them respect you and want to help you. it's significant because it shows that it's things like this that couldve made him learn his lesson and grow as a person. not punishments. just natural consequences, and learning from them.

essentially, tl;dr, my point is, facing ones own consequences without external interference will always be more meaningful than manufactured consequences. and seeing for oneself the way how one affects people will always teach one more than being punished for it. etc.

[scarletarosa]

Lucifer’s Teaching of Freedom

Lucifer isn’t just about freedom from tyranny, he also greatly represents spiritual freedom- the awakening of the Inner Light that shines outward, showing truth. He was created from the Source to be the god of Illumination, the one whose blinding light burns away all inner restrictions. Although spiritual freedom is often overlooked, it is the most important accomplishment a person can make, as it will determine everything for them. Thus, Lucifer guides the way towards absolute freedom, one that can never be bound in chains.

Freedom from tyranny is important since it allows us to live our lives freely, and Lucifer is well-known as the first rebel against the corrupted god, Jehovah. But even freedom from tyranny isn’t always taken seriously by Luciferians, because they fail to realize that tyranny has many forms and often starts in subtle ways. Lucifer teaches us to be cunning and to never trust others easily, especially those who are in power. He also teaches us that we must rise up and be courageous whenever something seems wrong, even if others are overlooking it. In the end, our freedom is up to us; we are the ones who have to take a stand and fight for it. Through these teachings, we will gradually understand that the freedom we think is around us is only a shadow. It is a dark veil that covers our eyes, but only the wise and cunning can see past it. Everything is being spun as a web around us, but the majority are content to live in blissfully ignorant lives, refusing to acknowledge anything that would disturb their peace. They live, and yet they are asleep.

The greatest cage of all is not around us, it is within us. Our true cage is our mind. For as long as we fail to expand and become Illuminated, we will always be bound to illusions. This is the teaching of spiritual freedom, which is complete Illumination/Awakening. Once this happens, we begin to see the truth of reality, allowing us to escape from any subtle clutches that seek to entangle our perception. What most people believe to be reality is moreso an illusion; we all believe our own “truths” but fail to actually break through assumptions in order to discover the actual reality, which is far more complex than anyone would expect. But this is an uncomfortable and often frightening process for many, since it requires one to let go of all they think they know- their idea of who they are, their idea of the world, what happens when they die, and many other things.

But through this sacrifice of false realities, we are liberated into the truth and rise up from our old self that we vanquished. Through the teachings of Illumination, we understand that we must seek out our true self, who is our higher self. This is our soul, the one who we began as, but are now reincarnated into a different life in order to gain wisdom. Our higher selves are usually humans, but some individuals are the incarnations of other beings. Once you discover who and what your higher self is through great effort and constant meditations, you will be on the first step towards Illumination. This takes a lot of time, and you must be certain that you find the true identity of your higher self or it won’t work. Through meditating on your higher self every day by focusing on your core (the centre of your body, right beneath ribcage), you will gradually become more connected to each other. Speak to your higher self, and ask for their wisdom. All this will eventually awaken the Second Sun within you, as your higher self begins glowing brightly within your centre. Allow this to empower you and guide you towards the deeper truth of who you are and what potential you have. Continue to become Illuminated by learning from the divine as much as possible, striving to Know yourself, and by always improving who you are. Seek the greatest heights of wisdom, and you will discover true freedom.

Through this empowerment of Awakening, your eyes will be fully opened to both the beauty and horror of reality. It will recreate you, but you will be far stronger and much more understanding of the meaning of your life. You will be free from the simple lives of many others, knowing that you do not have to follow with herds. No longer will you feel the need to fit in or do mundane things just to feel as if you are important, nor will you die without achieving something eternal. The fabricated reality around you will flake away, and all that will be left is the immense, incomprehensible truth that was hidden from you for so long. Through this, you will never again fall prey to illusions, and you will be made aware of your higher potential. Death will be meaningful for you, and you will never again have to return into a physical body. This is the full meaning of freedom, the one that Lucifer has taught since life began. By freeing our minds, we gain true wisdom and power. By transcending our lies, we are forever free. Ask yourself always, is reality truly what you think it is? The only way to find out is to break through the barriers.

There is some fiction in your truth, and some truth in your fiction. To know the truth, you must risk everything.

[sepublic]

Love that Din still has to go through the indignity of everyday struggles, I honestly think it makes him all the more appealing as a ruler because he’s someone who’s willingly gotten his hands dirty and done unglorified yet meaningful work. Definitely something a ruler needs to go through, understanding the ‘bottom’ of society before he can represent it; He has no lofty arrogance of thinking he’s ‘above’ that, because his leadership is not glory but a humble submission to duty, and it shows with Din’s maintained work ethic. And I’m sure there’s some symbolism to be derived from Din’s switch to a much smaller and sleeker ship, a star fighter.

I appreciate the in-universe perspective given as to how Bo-Katan claimed the Darksaber; The implication that she didn’t bother with the duel because she saw that as superstitious tradition of a ‘cult’, only for that ‘cult’ to be proven right with her utter failure. So now she’s trying to save face by taking these older traditions more seriously, especially to appeal to Mandalorians who are less than impressed by her tenure as of late; She’s a lofty Kryze competing with a working-class foundling who thinks of others. I wonder how Sabine feels about all of this, but regardless it’s a really concise and intuitive explanation for the apparent retcon. Bo has to swallow her pride and acknowledge, and repentantly play by, these rules she dismissed. And it’s interesting how Pre and Bo-Katan call for a return to ‘tradition’, but they really don’t seem to live up to that either.

LOVE that shade the Armorer threw at the Empire; Palpatine talked mad shit and yet it only lasted thirty years, meanwhile the Mandalorians are at 10,000 and still going. Palpatine’s reign is a mere blink in the eyes of history. The TIE bombers were a neat detail, and Peli being confirmed as an actual alien-fucker is amazing. And I love Paz, my beloved Meathead jock, being so aggro and even trying to kill Din with the Darksaber like a Drama Queen, but then the duel is over and they’re chill again because it really is nothing personal amongst warriors. When that shot dwelled on him I was afraid they’d try to turn him into a villain, but no the show was fair to Paz’s challenge, nor did the writers ‘punish’ him with death.

Also, I dig the symbolism of turning the spear into something protective. Just, the meta of how beskar is used to protect, how Mandalorians protect one another like a shield. Their power comes from resilience and not harm; The Empire bastardized their beskar to turn it into a piercing weapon. But Mandalorians are bound to each other and don’t target each other, don’t design weapons that jeopardize each other. The spear is aggression, but Din gives it new life and identity to protect Grogu, and I just dig the paternal implications of the shield, of defense and protection; Of maintaining ties versus attacking and lashing out. Din withstands ordeals and comes out lived-in, he bears the scars and it shows how he endures as a character.

All in all, I really appreciate that Din is still going on humble, down-to-earth adventures! It’s part of the appeal of his character in Season 1, not glamorous and kind of run-down. It feels intimate and so does the worldbuilding as a result, like this is just another small look at another small part of the galaxy, by people who live in it. And you get the sense that the show is taking its time to enjoy and take in the scenery, just the world itself and the processes and the little moments; It’s immersive and up-close and feels more real because we can see how it comes together, it’s not a distant diorama to be seen from afar. The mundanity makes it real because reality is mundane and I love it. I’ve seen some people actually criticize some of The Mandalorian’s episodes for being just that, episodic; But there’s a real charm to how much this guy has to go through, with each day to day struggle, just to keep things running at bare minimum. He has to go through a whole side quest just for directions and then limp the entire way on foot. It’s like I’m watching Samurai Jack and Cowboy Bebop in one, and I absolutely dig it.

And the focus on the N-1’s construction, you can tell the show runners really took the time to appreciate the finer, smaller details from the perspective of humbler characters like Peli who’ve never even been offworld. It feels authentic and a passionate love for the nitty-gritty details of Star Wars, when you obsess over the smallest details and have a field day with just this one minor aspect of the lore; Because even this little is enough to keep you enamored for a whole day; The director feels just as invested into the art of this world as the viewer. I love it. This is Star Wars to me.

[maybe-homestuck-now-or-something]

I really wanna talk about homestuck in relation to this post but like, idk if I wanna add to it because it might be a total derailment of the topic but homestuck is such a weird apocalypse narrative.

like... the way it handles it is so odd because earth itself is not very well characterized before the characters leave it. the characters themselves are massively well characterized, and that takes up the bulk of the narrative, but like... we never even hear them talk about school? or much of anything more than their shared interests and what's immediately happening to them. and in a way, that is kind of authentic. because when kids get together to hang out, the last thing they ever wanna talk about is dry, boring stuff about their mundane lives. they'll mostly just yell memes at each other, talk about anime, play video games... it's possible to simultaneously know nothing about your friends, but feel closer to them than ever, because you're mostly around for the parts of their life that they want to experience when they're having the most fun. you see them as they are when they have the most agency to choose that. and that might be totally divorced from the reality of how their day-to-day life unfolds.

in this way, homestuck presents these characters as people who have shed that mundane portion of their lives. they are now left with only the part that they typically share with their friends. and in reality, if a SBURB type apocalypse were to literally happen to you, it'd be traumatic as hell. but this is the place where homestuck chooses to ask you to suspend your disbelief. let's just believe that John didn't have any other friends or family to think about when the world ended. let's pretend they left zero people of any interest whatsoever behind. all they are shaking off is the society that they were obligated to participate in so mundanely. they no longer have to make any compromises with anyone... they get to fully center themselves.

okay, so that's obviously not entirely true... playing SBURB is a cooperative experience, and being friends with someone doesn't always mean that your relationship is easy. but homestuck allows the narrative to become self centered. it's about one individual and the tiny sphere of influence they have, among solely the people they've developed meaningful bonds with. it allows them to become a case study.

so when the world ends, the world is not necessarily what matters. what matters is the identities of a few specific individuals who we spend a lot of time cultivating our own connections with as a reader.

and that all becomes incredibly interesting when you consider classes and aspects.

basically, in terms of the post linked above, classes and aspects are the harry potter houses, the factions, the "what bender are you" or MBTI type... they're not the only way you could categorize the characters, but they're the most universally applicable to all of the characters that are important in the narrative. and what's interesting is just like... what classes are for, and how complicated it actually is to know what aspects are, or what they mean.

starting with classes, these are basically a series of archetypes that are specialized so that everyone has a role to play that makes them uniquely valuable to a collective. if we're considering this in terms of DnD, you can think of what classes might make for a balanced party, and how having a balanced party makes it satisfying to play the game. no one player could handle everything on their own, and at the same time, everyone feels needed. nobody is useless.

this already seems fundamentally different from some of the means of categorization that I listed above. a lot of these systems are meant to divvy up the characters into societally recognized in-groups and out-groups... people who can be identified as allies or enemies. even if the groups are ascribed certain archetypal skills, the goal is rarely so explicitly for the archetypes to work together, or cover each other's weaknesses. Avatar is probably what comes the closest to this idea, with its underlying endeavor to find harmony between the elements, but homestuck uses classes both as a way to communicate unique specialization, and as a way to unify the characters by their need for support.

and that's a little weird isn't it? these characters just shed all of their obligations to a broader society, and we're taking that as a freeing event... right? but there is a difference between society and community, and while homestuck might use the destruction of society as a catalyst for adventure, it uses the formation of community as the driving force behind the story's progression. the characters are all motivated to work together and help each other... and that doesn't always mean that it works. even within a community, one person's drive to center themselves and their own personal growth can trample others who were trying to do the same thing. perhaps not everyone in the community consents to being cooperative. perhaps the difference in archetype could drive someone to become competitive instead. and these are all value-neutral observations... no archetype is specifically acknowledged as being evil, even when they have friction with one another.

basically... this is character writing. and I find it funny that these broad categories that kids like to identify themselves with are seen as ways of flattening characterization into broad strokes like "the brave one" or "the sneaky one" or what have you, because in the case of classes, the characterization becomes deeper. and I think that's because the categories are used well... the characters all have specific relationships with the stereotypes they're ascribed by others, and the archetypes they're told they must fulfill. the classes don't define them, but they do give them something to contend with. can they fulfill their role? can they live up to their purpose? is there a place in the story for someone with an archetype like theirs? do they want to be this?

aspects get even trickier, and for this I might just link to a video I really love that covers a lot of the thoughts I've been having. it's kind of front loaded with a lot of technical talk about computer science and philosophy, and tbh I love that homestuck does actually link up those concepts with so much of it's presentation, but the main bit that intrigues me is the way the video talks about aspects as irreducible components of thought. like the periodic table of elements, but for ideas.

this drastically elevates the importance of each character's assigned category, and makes it function so much better as a tool for characterization. because, like, the aspects are actually really abstract. when someone says their aspect is "wind" or "light" you could take that 100% literally if you wanted to... but by the time you've read enough of homestuck to connect those to John and Rose, you probably understand that it's not that simple. and other concepts, such as astrology, have taught you that this is the sort of system that you're supposed to interpret, right? what is a capricorn if not a loose collection of traits that give you a certain vibe? that's what we're working with when it comes to aspects. otherwise, how would you know what void, or doom, or mind are? tbh it's actually pretty genius that astrology was worked into the comic as an aesthetic element, just so we'd all be mentally primed to do this kind of categorical interpretation... hell, even the actual signs themselves constitute a framework with which you could analyze the characters, like, how does Nepeta display typical leo traits, or how is Vriska a stereotypical scorpio... it all still works, even as you understand that each individual is more complex than the traits which support that interpretation.

in this way, the aspects are never really explained exhaustively verbatim, and are almost solely defined by the traits you've observed from individual characters, who act as representatives for what these categories actually are. or at least how they function in this instance, which is what's relevant. it's not just superpowers, and it's not just archetypes... it's both at the same time, and you come at them from a character-first perspective when you're trying to figure out what they mean. the characters inform your knowledge of the categories, and the categories act as a framework for analyzing the characters. and I love how homestuck tricks you into assuming that it has a lot of little rigid categories for the characters to slot into, and how quickly it becomes apparent that everything is way more abstract than it first appears. and yet, it all still means something. and it's really interesting to, say, compare two different time players to try to piece together what is typical for that archetype, while also accounting for their class, and trying to understand how that changes the roles they play and the ways they behave. and then you have the trolls' caste system on top of that, and the astrology angle I mentioned earlier, and there are honestly so many overlapping ways to think about it all, and I think that's the point.

[normal-thoughts-official]

I would have loved to see more interactions with the seelies- people who can’t lie but are crafty and secretive sounds fascinating. Think of the dialog! Alec going to magnus for advice since he has centuries of experience talking to them, Alec playing mental chess while trying to maintain peace. Would have loved getting more- but let’s be real, Cassaundra and the show writers weren’t clever enough to actually make any conversations like that of value.

SAME!!!!! honestly i would have loved to see so much more of the seelies. like bro do you understand that their culture predates the VERY EXISTENCE OF HUMANITY??? they are the ONLY kind of downworlders whose culture is completely detached from any human culture, not only because of predating it, but also because of the relative isolationism - which means human culture barely had any influence on their culture and history AS it developed

so like you can literally go fucking bonkers??????????? you can make ANYTHING. they have a whole ass society that doesn't have to have ANY ties to mundane concepts or history AT ALL. complete creative freedom. you could do ANYTHING! and don't get me started on the potential this has, within storytelling, to contextualize a lot of stuff modern western culture sees as natural or timeless as actually pretty fucking specific - like monogamy, cisheteropatriarchy, the gender binary, racism. all immortals have that potential of course since they can come from an array of different cultural and historical backgrounds but seelies in particular have SO much potential that is NEVER! FUCKING! USED! it all goes to waste and they are just a generic vaguely monarchic society that behaves literally exactly as modern western cultural standards. WHY. i'll never stop being salty, especially within sh where all this potential was there and instead they just villainized the seelies like no tomorrow for nO FUCKING REASON, and included a whole plotline about their ruler being a terrible power-hungry person and then proceeded to act as if that would have no influence on the seelies under her rule? thanks for nothing

like i know the seelie queen was so badly written that her own motivations even as a power-hungry wacko didn't make sense or were consistent (like why give simon the mark of cain for example, and for god's sake what kind of power-hungry crazy bitch gives their main enemy the power to literally kill her and destroy everything she has at the blink of an eye, like??? she literally tried to assist in her own genocide, it makes no fucking sense, i fucking hate it here) but if they are going to make her Terrible the least they could do was show how that impacted the people under her rule, especially if they are going to have meliorn be fucking tortured and either forced to display the marks of said torture or choosing to display them themself, like? please give your plotlines one singular thought

but of course it's easier to villainize seelies and reduce them to their obviously tyrannical ruler so they can go back to focusing on the shadowhunters and their issues. nevermind the fact that seelies are obviously equivalent to native ppls/third world countries resisting colonialism/imperialism in sh's stupid ass racial metaphor, which makes making their ruler a big bad unequivocally evil villain that is ruining everything A Choice. and a particularly choicy Choice considering they cast a middle-eastern man to play the most important seelie character. but if they are going to do that they could at least address how the people under her rule suffer and how that's a direct consequence of shadowhunter colonialism and interference, but why would we fkcnig thdo that!!!! when we can have love triangle drama or whatever

and tHEN there is the whole aspect of being unable to lie which is bound to have such an impact on their culture and history since they have to rely on other forms of communication to protect themselves - and considering the whole "tyrannical rule" plotline, to further the queen's agenda in the first place. and how telling the truth without preamble would probably be considered a huge display of trust in a society that has culturally developed so many ways of talking around things. like again the potential of the cultural and historic background for that society! it makes me go insane!!!

anyway all of that to say #JusticeForSeelies and #SeeliePlotlinesNow 2021 and forever. and YES i would have loved to see more interactions between them and other characters, particularly magnus because 1- admittedly i'm a hoe; and 2- magnus was clearly the one that had the most experience talking to seelies and that others relied on for that communication. he also seemed to be the most comfortable with them, which indicates there is either some sort of history there, or magnus just happens to feel relatively at home with the workings of their culture. which makes sense, because magnus also had to develop pretty similar defense mechanisms due to his, A- work as a warlock representative who has to interact with shadowhunters on the regular; B- history with having to deal with asmodeus, which required him to be very smart about what he disclosed and how, especially considering that he had to have been planning banishing asmodeus for a long time before he got to do it; and C- just history with abuse in general. we've seen the way he closed his heart off to new people; but at the same time, magnus is obviously an extrovert and likes to be around people in general. this meant that, in order to be able to both be in the kind of environment where he thrives and protect himself/his heart/his feelings, he had to learn how to interact with people while putting on a convincing façade, which requires pretty much the same sorts of wordplay and defense mechanisms that seelies use

magnus is good at wordplay, he's good at using talking to his benefit; we've seen that. he is also good at hiding and deflecting. he is notably not good at directly lying - every time he directly said A Lie such as "i am perfectly fine and not bothered by this at all :)" it was way less convincing than it was a clear display that he wouldn't budge. even alec, who has difficulty with social cues, noticed the lying and seemed concerned about it. so like. clearly his defense mechanisms were less lying and more dancing around subjects, directing conversation to safe topics, and guiding people to making certain assumptions and seeing sides of his that were safer and he preferred

so in that way it makes sense that magnus is somewhat in his element when dealing with seelies. i think "comfortable" is a strong word because this whole song and dance takes a huge toll on anyone's mental health and energy (which i think is something that could be very interestingly explored in seelies, their collective psyche, and their culture, the way they build relationships, etc. let meliorn have partners they feel 100% comfortable talking without preamble with 2k21), but it's something he is used to and a dynamic he can fall into without as much effort as others who would be second guessing themselves more and going slower, which clearly gives the seelies, who are used to it, an advantage

and like i know that i'm implying a confrontation or sort of situation where they are on opposing sides to seelies here, which i kind of am because i am thinking mostly about magnus' interactions with the seelie queen specifically, since she was the seelie he had the most meaningful interactions with. his interactions with meliorn were very few and almost never relevant, i barely remember them happening outside of generic downworld cabinet interactions tbh. but i don't just mean that because again, stop villainizing seelies 2k21

i also mean just generally that magnus would be in a more comfortable position talking to seelie strangers and slowly working into building a relationship and mutual trust. and just generally understanding them and the workings of their culture because he can empathize with the way they have built their social defense mechanisms. no one is 100% truthful to strangers, but seelies always seem kind of- analytical. and the cultural difference + anti-seelie racism makes them seem untrustworthy to most people, but magnus Gets It, so the potential for friendships! and the mutual understanding and the relative comfort around each other! and both parts understanding the enormity that is letting their walls down gradually and being more direct as time goes by. like.... aaaaaa

and yes magnus becomes a sort of reference on talking to seelies, mostly because he is good at "playing their game", but also making it a point to humanize seelies and making the other parts understand where they are coming from and how they feel :) and just improving their relations, particularly with other downworlders

im not going to get into alec because 1- the relationship between shadowhunters and seelies is already filled with oppression and a lot of complications, and particularly now that the seelie realm is politically fragile due to the loss of their ruler (however terrible she might have been), it would play into either white savior narratives or just straight up colonialism, especially given how alec as a leader already has a history of trying to build tutelage over downworlders (i don't care what his intentions were, it's still true, and although he's learning... well. he's learning, continuous action); 2- that would be more a relationship of opposition and i'm not that interested in that. but i would love to see seelies rebuilding themselves and their relationships and alliances with other downworlders particularly, and all the better if magnus is playing a part in that :)

in short:

more seelies

more magnus with seelies, especially friendships

more focus on the politics of seelies now that the seelie queen is gone

more seelies

more seelies

more seelies

[fitzsimmonsinfillory]

on reflection, I think the reason why the Line of Duty finale fell a bit flat was because the emotional resolution felt underdeveloped

mostly this was because pretty much the main relationship of the season, Kate and Jo, wasn't addressed at all. Jo went into witness protection, great, but she never got to talk to Kate about their relationship or find out whether Kate had been pretending (which we all agree she wasn't), or even just say goodbye, so their chemistry and both of their stories felt unresolved. It wouldn't have taken much, just one or two scenes, or even a few LINES. Best case scenario they confess their love, kiss, and go off into the sunset, but the bare minimum was some kind of meaningful interaction between them beyond procedure. Given everything they've been through this series, they deserved more than they got. All the little moments between them ended up amounting to nothing, and as viewers we were left feeling hollow.

and as for Steve, his storyline felt rushed in the last episode. He sought help for his addiction, which was good, but it was presented as a quick fix, and the big meaningful speech came from the counsellor, who was such a minor character he wasn't even named. And then Steve's second storyline this series, with Steph, was all but glossed over. She didn't appear in this episode, only in a voicemail, so there was no closure there either.

tbh I'm not too bothered about *SPOILERS* Buckells being H, because there wasn't really another way they could have made it more dramatic while still keeping it realistic. And it WAS realistic - people do bad things for the most mundane of reasons - he wasn't born into a life of crime or blackmailed like Jo, he just wanted the money, lifestyle and power. I think the whole point was that it didn't feel conclusive or satisfying, because the corruption Buckells represents isn't gone - it's institutional and endemic, and no matter what AC-12 do, they will never uncover it all.

I don't think it was was an objectively bad episode, even though it certainly didn't meet the standards of the rest of this season. But for this episode to feel satisfying, especially as a finale, it needed more emotional weight, and that was what was lacking.

[funkymbtifiction]

4

I know places like Enneagrammer are very strict about their definition of 4 as someone who deliberately self-differentiates and creates an elitist identity out of their suffering. But I'm not sure they're right anymore. Given that the Enneagram is all theorising without scientific proof, this is all up to subjective interpetations anyway. Enneagrammer can't claim to be definitively right unless they go out and do the hard work to empirically validate their claims with academic research across a large, representative sample using the scientific method, which online typology communities don't do lol. It's more 'Yah I have 5 friends like this and my aunt is like this and I browse Reddit and PersonalityCafe a lot and I like this theory, so I'M RIGHT!' So, since this is mostly up to subjective interpretation and personal experience, here's my take:

For 4s, I lean towards Enneagram writers like Richard Rohr's interpretation. The 4 is someone who wants to live deeply and authentically and seeks beauty and meaning as a driving goal. I don't think it's necessary that elitism/superiority to others needs to be a defining part of the 4. Maybe this is common in 4s, but I don't think it HAS to be a definitive trait as this definition is too narrow. We need to have a broad definition of the 4 because, in my experience, there are people whose core motivation is to live with depth and meaning, and whose core fear is to live a shallow life. A lot of people (particularly philosophical, thoughtful and creative people) fall into this core motivation and fear but without the 'I create an identity around my suffering and am elitist') aspect. So you need a type that accommodates that kind of orientation towards depth, meaning and beauty, and imo no other type really covers that. Your thoughts?

“I must be a mermaid, Rango. I have no fear of depths and a great fear of shallow living.” ― Anais Nin.

I think the truth about 4s is somewhere in-between all the descriptions of 4s. As regards Enneagrammer, there are a few things that have always bothered me about them. One is that they ignore the emotionalism of 4 and focus primarily on it being elitist. I notice they talk an awful lot about being separate, and painting oneself into a corner, and this is highly true in a lot of ways, BUT... 4 is also "I need to experience every emotion to its last drop," and they avoid talking about that. Maybe it's something they don't like to admit to themselves? (It also makes me a little suspicious when 4 is apparently such a rare fix and yet every mod over there still has it.)

I know 4 fixers who over-inflate everything and yes, pick back over conversations looking for a good reason to feel insulted. So Rohr is accurate in how he talks about how 4s aren't satisfied with an ORDINARY life, they are searching for a much, much BIGGER emotion. There are 4s like Anne Shirley, who display ALL the traits of a 4, from over-emotions and emotional magnifying (making everything SUCH a big deal) AND the crippled / rejected bird syndrome (no one wants me, I'm an ugly redhead!). The only core 4 I've ever known felt that way. Unwanted, prematurely rejected, surprised to be desired or included for her own sake, but also -- you milk every feeling for what it's worth. You don't "get over it," you sit in it and make a big deal out of it, because this is what I am FEELING. That's what you have to remember about 4. It's not just I love this, or I am deep, it's I will drink every last drop of my feelings. I will not move on from this intensity. (Bright Star, Shakespeare, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Emily Bronte, etc).

If you define 4 as merely someone who wants a deep life, you will have a lot of people mistyping as 4s because honestly, who wants to be thought of as shallow? The 4 = depth thing (and the woman who invented tritype uses that description, basically, for 4, which is how I mistyped as a 4 fixer for several years) has made a lot of people assume they are 4s, because they want life to have meaning, they want their movies and books and things to be deep, they love deep conversations, they need BEAUTY like they need air (this is me) but... they don't have the elitism that goes with 4. You must have both to be a 4 core, IMO.

I can spot a 4 anywhere; some of them actually get mad if you love what they love, because it's not theirs and it's not unique and it's not "special" anymore, it's not a "niche" interest that makes them special because they know about it and you don't. They love to dress "weird" and stand out, because as an image type, they are "displaying themselves" -- Enneagrammer has that spot on. The girl who works at a checker at the local store who is forever wearing 16 different necklaces, buttons, and earrings and when you ask her about them, she will smile a little and assure you that you don't know who any of these bands are (and she's delighted to be proven right) ... is a 4. ;)

In my opinion, NF orients itself toward "depth and beauty" anyway as a core desire, and NFP in particular does this because high Ne and Fi hates reality and wants a fantasy. It's idealistic, and not interested in the mundane. And you don't have to have 4 in your stack to feel that way. But you do need some of that "I love what I don't have, and I hate what I have" behavior to be 4, like Rohr said -- the woman who hated her husband until he left her, and then she loved him again, because 4 is always longing for something it doesn't have.

ETA: I wanted to add something here. It's very easy to latch onto superficial descriptions of 4 as an NF type especially and assume you are one, which is why I was so torn about 4 for a long time. Do I want everything in life to be meaningful and beautiful? Yes. Do I need everything to be deep? Yes. Do I search for deeper emotions than the one I am having and feel remorse if I am not feeling them? Yes. Do I have a condescending attitude about people loving things I deem as shallow? Yes. Do I have yo-yo relationships where familiarity breeds contempt? Yes. And yet, I am still not a 4. I am just an ENFP. Your personality type, the things your dominant function wants and needs, factors into these things as much as your Enneagram fixes. All of the above is me being a Ne and a Fi type. So if you exclude the negative, darker aspects of 4 and don't look at them (elitism, painting yourself into a corner, over-identifying with your broken image), you will mistype, in the same way you have to look at the core motivations and what that looks like of every other type. People really want to be 8s, also, but what about the crap being an 8 brings into your life? The ruined relationships? the aggression issues? being disliked and alienating people? You have to see it all, the good and the bad. The good of having a 2 fix - helpful, generous. The bad? - you owe me. Lots of people want beauty and depth, but lots of them also do not struggle with specifically 4 problems of self-sabotage.

[sexyglances]

Here's Tian's birthday fic, ok! You can either read it on ao3 or the full ~2k words are under the cut.

-----

Tian woke up on his back as a ray of sunshine slipped through the gap between slats of bamboo and struck his eyes. He rarely put his eye mask on at night these days, preferring to wake up earlier in the mornings so he could spend the first part of the day with Phupha rather than staying in bed alone. This change in habit, however, didn't automatically turn him into a morning person by nature, so Tian kept his eyes shut, as if keeping them closed meant he could preserve that sleepy sweet feeling for a bit longer. His effort was futile though, as he could feel more than just the sun trained on his face. "Chief," Tian smiled, eyes still closed, "I know you're looking at me."

Tian heard a small chuckle to his right and felt Phupha's breath tease his ear. "Good morning." Phupha said, voice filled with endearment, "and happy birthday, Tian." Then he leaned in and pecked Tian's cheek and whispered, "I'm so happy you're here."

Tian turned his head towards Phupha and opened his eyes. Phupha was lying on his side facing Tian, head resting in the cradle of his elbow. "Chief--" Tian said. Tian wanted to tell Phupha to stop, that he didn't need to say these things to him anymore, that it's been long enough that the gratitude should have worn off by now, that their devotion could remain unspoken. But Tian couldn't say those things because his chest still got heavy and his heart still swelled every morning when he could look over and see Phupha looking back at him with so much tenderness in his eyes. Instead, he settled with a, "Me too," and returned the peck on Phupha's cheek. He went to pull away, but before he could do so, Phupha had turned his head just enough so that their lips met so they could properly kiss. Phupha nudged closer, trying to deepen the kiss, but Tian pulled back and placed his hand softly on Phupha's chest to stop him. "Hey. We haven't even brushed our teeth yet this morning." Judging by the way he raised his eyebrows, Phupha did not think this was a good enough excuse to stop. They gazed at each other for a few seconds, the atmosphere charging up between them, on the brink of something unstoppable, until Tian popped the bubble and said, "And I have class this morning in a little bit."

That declaration worked and Phupha dropped his eyes. "Right," Phupha said with a tinge of disappointment in his voice, "You have school today." Before Tian could say anything else about continuing this quote-unquote discussion later, Phupha changed the topic and asked, "Are you thirsty?" Without waiting for an answer, he got up, went to the sink, and brought back two ceramic cups of water. Tian pushed himself up and swung his legs over the edge of the bed into a sitting position. Phupha handed him a cup and sat down on the bed next to Tian.

These cups were new to Tian, different from the dented tin cups they usually used in the bedroom for utility. The cup Tian held was thick and rounded with a glossy finish and felt hefty in Tian's hand. Beneath the shiny glaze was an intricate, colorful design of green tea leaves and stems intertwining alongside cream-colored depictions of blooming oolong tea flowers flowers with bright yellow centers. Tian turned the cup around in his hand, studying its design until he saw the design break to encircle an inscription written with delicate writing in a burgundy color. "Oh, what's this?" Tian asked as his fingers traced the wording that read "for the colorful philosopher."

Phupha responded, "It's my present for you. It's not much but--"

Before Phupha could finish his sentence Tian said, "Chief, I told you I didn't need any presents this year." He leaned his head on Phupha's shoulder. "Just being here is enough."

Phupha leaned his head on top of Tian's and breathed in. Phupha was still not sure how he got so lucky. How his life changed so fantastically and dynamically from a life that he never disliked, but was one he now realized was fine--but just fine, nothing more than fine. His old life felt rote and mundane and empty compared to his new life with Tian. And a new life is what it was. How could it not feel new when everything felt effervescent and full and colorful in a way he had never experienced before. Phupha had always been prone to noticing the tiniest details of things, but what surprised him in the most unexpected way was how much joy he could get out of those tiny details. How love had transformed those tiny details into something that encapsulated his entire existence with warmth and vigor and gratification to be alive. "I know," Phupha responded, "but I still wanted to get you something. It's not much, but it represents us." Phupha held up his own cup to show Tian. "Look, I have one, too."

Tian switched the cups in their hands. He read Phupha's cup aloud, "For the giant green mountain." A tear pricked the corner of Tian's eye. It was too early for such sentimentality. He had just woken up and Phupha was already flooding Tian with feelings of affection. And he hadn't even stood up for the damn day yet. Tian had been given plenty of birthday gifts in the past, but never anything where someone spent more on the care and personal details involved than they spent with their money. Tian stared at the cups some more. "Where did you get these?" Tian asked.

"I went to a ceramic shop a few months ago in Chiang Mai and special ordered them," Phupha answered matter-of-factly, as if planning and designing and ordering a gift months in advance was an ordinary, everyday gesture and not a remarkable act of romanticism at all.

Tian set the cup he was holding down on the floor. "Chief," Tian said with a slight tremble in his voice. He pulled Phupha into a hug, "Thank you." Tian didn't have the words to convey everything he meant, all the gratitude he had for his life in Pha Pun Dao, for his chief, for this love they shared, but he hoped that the hug could relay a fraction of what he was feeling. Phupha hugged back tightly as if he was trying to reciprocate all his feelings back to Tian.

They pulled apart and Phupha exhaled before placing a hand on Tian's knee. "Come on, we have to get you to school."

-----

As Tian and Phupha walked into the school, it was already bustling. The kids were there, uncharacteristically early and they were busy hanging up homemade decorations with Yod and Rang's help.

"Ah, what's all this?" Tian asked with surprise in his voice.

Everyone turned around and in an out-of-unison cacophony of voices yelled different variations of happy birthday, addressing him by "Tian," "teacher," and "P'Seetian" accordingly. Khounueng and Kalae ran up to him and pointed at a cake on the table.

"Look what we made!" exclaimed Khounueng, and then he stuck a party blower in his mouth and blew it in Tian's face.

"Yeah!" Ayi yelled from across the room, "we picked the strawberries ourselves and decorated with them and everything!"

"We'll get to eat it soon, right?" Kalae asked as he shoved an extra strawberry into his mouth.

Before Tian could answer, Inta and Meejoo grabbed each of Tian's hands and pulled him to the front of the classroom. We made you a birthday crown, too!" said lnta as she picked up and waved a crown of tea leaves woven together in a circle studded with pink and yellow frangipani flowers and white jasmine buds.

"Put it on," Meejoo begged. "it's so pretty. She held up a second matching crown, "We made one for Torfun's birthday, too."

Tian looked at Phupha and they shared a meaningful look. Torfun was still a part of Pha Pun Dao, and even though she was gone, she was unforgettable. It was only because of her that Tian could experience all this joyfulness that surrounded him. Tian couldn't say that out loud of course, it would be too much for today, so instead he said, "Ooh, you're right, they are pretty. Let's take this to her memorial place in the afternoon." He patted Meejoo's hair. "Now who wants to help me cut the cake?"

But before Tian could move to the cake, Phupha cut in and asked, "Aren't you forgetting something?" He grinned fully as he took one of the flower crowns from Inta and placed it on Tian's head. "How could we celebrate the prince's birthday without his special crown?" Tian rolled his eyes. Of course Phupha would call him a prince on today of all days. But there was no bite behind Phupha's words, the words were just playful teasing and Tian knew that.

Tian had many birthday parties in his life. They were usually lavish and full of expensive decorations and even more expensive gifts. People dressed up and schmoozed at his parties, using them as a time to network and one-up each other, caught up in a lifestyle where status trumped everything else. The parties were simply an excuse for people--himself included--to show off. His mom would call him a prince for the day and Tian would go with it, letting himself give into the fantasy. And even though he had always made sure to have fun, indulging in alcohol and whatever wild dares the night brought him, looking back on them now, the memories felt hollow. As if he had been living in a bizarre lucid dream that he's woken up from and it was only now that everything actually felt real.

Tian challenged Phupha back with a smile of his own, "If I'm a prince, then what does that make you, Chief?"

Nam's voice came from the doorway, "Why, that makes him your chief prince of course." Tian and Phupha turned toward him as he walked into the building with Longtae trailing just behind.

"Sorry we're late," Longtae said, and gestured towards Nam, "he had to pick me up from the train station and it didn't come on time."

"You're here, too?" Tian asked.

"Of course I am, P'" Longtae said. "It's a special day." He looked up at Tian's crown and smiled. "I had to come take pictures." As Longtae said that, he held up his camera and snapped a photo.

"Oh, oh, oh," Nam cut in, "Don't you think you should get a picture of the prince and the chief prince together?" He took the other flower crown from Meejoo, and as he placed it on Phupha's head, he winked and said, "I'm sure Torfun wouldn't mind if you borrowed this for a few minutes."

Before Phupha had a chance to object, Tian interlocked his arm with Phupha's and looked at him with soft eyes. "We should get a picture together today, don't you think?" And with that, Tian turned to pose for the camera.

-----

Two weeks later an envelope addressed from Longtae back at school showed up in the mail for Tian. Inside was a packet of pictures from Tian's birthday. The first photo on top of the stack was a shot of Tian and Phupha, both wearing the flower crowns, and their arms interlocked, smiling for the camera.

The second picture in the stack was a more candid shot and was taken from closer up. The half-eaten birthday cake peeking in at the edge of the frame indicated it was a photo taken later in the celebration. Tian and Phupha were sitting down at the long school table, Tian's hand on Phupha's shoulder, Phupha's arm slung around Tian's waist. They were still wearing the flower crowns, but this time they were looking at each other, heads bent together, eyes sparkling, and laughing, as if they were unified in their own private world.

It was that second photograph that Tian had plucked from the stack to save. He had stuck it onto the corner of the bulletin board in their room so he could see it everyday before he left for the day. The photo represented something intangible. All he knew was that he couldn't look at it without feeling warmth radiate from within himself. It was a feeling so precious, he resolved to never let it go.

[lucy-ghoul]

you’ve helped me realized that much of what i’ve been praising as ETL is in fact rivals to lovers… and that there are actually a lot of meaningful distinctions between the two relationships!! my conclusion is that both are good but for different reasons.

(sorry for the late reply, anon!)

you're welcome! ❤️ i've not written extensively about the etl Discoursé so i'm not sure which posts of mine helped you specifically but maybe it was something i've reblogged? anyway yes, both can be quite good for different reasons. at the end of the day they're just labels; i do think that the (imo legitimate) rise of the ~it's not etl if they didn't try to kill each other at least once!~ arguments is due to the pressing criticism that actual etl romances get when they do appear in media, see "it's abuse!!1!!" etc. when nope, it's just a fictional trope where two characters are ideologically opposed in every way, they belong to warring factions so of course they'd literally cross swords with each other, and often there's at least one kidnapping/torture/murder attempt. they're enemies, and that what's enemies do, they do not quarrel about rival sport teams or whatever lmao. of course if you (general you) can't handle it that's okay, to each one their own etc., but you can't cry about ~aBuSe when... i mean, that's literally the trope, dude. it often (but not necessarily) crosses with villlain/hero ships, so at least half of the pair has committed some kind of atrocity (good! 😈 lmao). it's not and will never be a 1:1 copy of our reality, and it's not meant to be read as such. of course people throwing knives at each other or whatever irl is not romantic or cute but we're talking about fiction and fictional worlds governed by very different rules than ours. it's a fantasy, a playground where you can make your imaginary dolls act out sceneries that irl are as highly improbable as dragons or magical rings of doom, and that's the point. it's very obvious tbh, i can't believe that even needs to be said, and yet some people don't seem to grasp it.

i also saw some descriptions of rivals to lovers which i don't agree with. there is a difference between rtl or etl and belligerent sexual tension; usually the latter involves two characters who are on the same side but for some reason they dislike each other, so it may turn into a hate/love thing. but rtl implies that, you know, they're rivals, so they're competing over something - i already mentioned opposing sport teams, for example. i'm currently writing a rtl chess au for my otp (which in canon is something like belligerent sexual tension + bad first impression thing a la darcy/lizzie) while in the past i've extensively written about people literally trying to gut each other (and there's at least some torture in it 😌) so i'm familiar with the difference between the two tropes. they're both fun to write but yes, the rtl story seems very tame in comparison with my usual Problematique shit lmao, tho i love writing it because it touches upon other themes, motifs, and tropes i'm in love with.

i think a lot depends on the tone and goals of the story. in a more mundane setting that deals with everyday life and not stakes higher than the empire building it's a bit more difficult to make people who attempt to slice each other's throats fall in love; fantasy&co. implicitly requires a suspension of disbelief - things are way larger than real life, and often this kind of romance shapes the land of these fictional worlds, as both represents different sides of the conflict that in a doylistic way is the basic foundation for these worlds' very existence. it's a bit daunting to imagine the same dynamic in, idk, an austenian-like setting lol, that's why for austen's standards lizzie and darcy are Peak etl when in fact they're extremely vanilla.

[comrade-meow]

March 1 – Marx’s Theory of Alienation

The alienation of labour that takes place specifically in capitalist society is sometimes mistakenly described as four distinct types or forms of alienation. It is, on the contrary, a single total reality that can be analyzed from a number of different points of view. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx discusses four aspects of the alienation of labour, as it takes place in capitalist society: one is alienation from the product of labour; another is alienation from the activity of labour; a third is alienation from one’s own specific humanity; and a fourth is alienation from others, from society. There is nothing mysterious about this fourfold breakdown of alienation. It follows from the idea that all acts of labour involve an activity of some sort that produces an object of some sort, performed by a human being (not a work animal or a machine) in some sort of social context.

Alienation in general, at the most abstract level, can be thought of as a surrender of control through separation from an essential attribute of the self, and, more specifically, separation of an actor or agent from the conditions of meaningful agency. In capitalist society the most important such separation, the one that ultimately underlies many, if not most other forms, is the separation of most of the producers from the means of production. Most people do not themselves own the means necessary to produce things. That is, they do not own the means that are necessary to produce and reproduce their lives. The means of production are, instead owned by a relatively few. Most people only have access to the means of production when they are employed by the owners of the means of production to produce under conditions that the producers themselves do not determine.

So alienation is not meant by Marx to indicate merely an attitude, a subjective feeling of being without control. Although alienation may be felt and even understood, fled from and even resisted, it is not simply as a subjective condition that Marx is interested in it. Alienation is the objective structure of experience and activity in capitalist society. Capitalist society cannot exist without it. Capitalist society, in its very essence, requires that people be placed into such a structure and, even better, that they come to believe and accept that it is natural and just. The only way to get rid of alienation would be to get rid of the basic structure of separation of the producers from the means of production. So alienation has both its objective and subjective sides. One can undergo it without being aware of it, just as one can undergo alcoholism or schizophrenia without being aware of it. But no one in capitalist society can escape this condition (without escaping capitalist society). Even the capitalist, according to Marx, experiences alienation, but as a “state”, differently from the worker, who experiences it as an “activity”. Marx, however, pays little attention to the capitalist’s experience of alienation, since his experience is not of the sort which is likely to bring into question the institutions that underpin that experience.

The first aspect of alienation is alienation from the product of labour. In capitalist society, that which is produced, the objectification of labour, is lost to the producer. In Marx’s words, “objectification becomes the loss of the object”. The object is a loss, in the very mundane and human sense, that the act of producing it is the same act in which it becomes the property of another. Alienation here, takes on the very specific historical form of the separation of worker and owner. That which I produced, or we produced, immediately becomes the possession of another and is therefore out of our control. Since it is out of my control, it can and does become an external and autonomous power on its own.

In making a commodity as a commodity (for the owner of the means of production) I not only lose control over the product I make, I produce something which is hostile to me. We produce it; he possesses it. His possession of what we produce gives him power over us. Not only are we talking here about the things that are produced for direct consumption. More basically, we are talking about the production of the means of production themselves. The means of production are produced by workers, but completely controlled by owners. The more we, the workers, produce, the more productive power there is for someone else to own and control. We produce someone else’s power over us. He uses what we have produced in order to wield his power over us. The more we produce, the more they have and the less we have. If I make a wage, I can work for forty or fifty years, and at the end of my life have not much more than I had at the beginning, and none of my fellow workers do either. Where has all this work gone? Some has gone into sustaining us so that we can go on working, but a great deal has gone into the expanded reproduction of the means of production, on behalf of the owners and their power. “Society” gets wealthier, but the individuals themselves do not. They do not own or control a greater proportion of the wealth.

The hostility of the product over which I relinquish my control in selling my labour – this also refers to the inhuman power of the impersonal laws of production . The laws of capitalist production have power over me. The boss, the capitalist owner himself, may simply be regarded as merely the representative of more remote, hidden, and inscrutable forces. His excuse, when he informs me that I am no longer needed, that he would have to close up the place or go broke if he didn’t do this, is no mere excuse. The capitalist himself is merely a priest who lives well off the service of capital, and not a god. When the god speaks, he too must jump, or he will find himself in my place, where god knows, no one wants to be. So, between him and me, it’s “nothing personal”. But this is exactly the problem, not an excuse.

The second aspect of alienation, alienation from the activity of labour, means that in labouring I lose control over my life-activity. Not only do I lose control over the thing I produce, I lose control over the activity of producing it. My activity is not self-expression. My activity has no relation to my desires about what I want to do, no relation with the ways I might choose to express myself, no relation with the person I am or might try to become. The only relation that the activity has with me is that it is a way of filling my belly and keeping a roof over my head. My life activity is not life-activity. It is merely the means of self-preservation and survival. In alienated labour, Marx claims, humans are reduced to the level of an animal, working only for the purpose of filling a physical gap, producing under the compulsion of direct physical need.

Alienation from my life-activity also means that my life-activity is directed by another. Somebody else, the foreman, the engineer, the head office, the board of directors, foreign competition, the world-market, the very machinery I am operating, it/they decide what and how and how long and with whom I am going to act. Somebody else also decides what will be done with my product. And I must do this for the vast majority of my waking hours on earth. What could and should be free conscious activity, and what they tell me I have contracted to do as a free worker, becomes forced labour. It is imposed by my need and by the other’s possession of the means of satisfying all needs. As a result I relate to my own activity as though it were something alien to me, as though it were not really mine, which it isn’t. I do not truly belong in this place, doing this thing over and over and over again, until I cannot even think or feel anything but the minutes ticking over until quitting time. The real me wants to be doing something.

My activity becomes the activity of another. Life comes to be split between alien work and escape from working, which for us is “leisure”. Because our own life activity becomes an alien power over our lives, activity itself gets a bad name. and we tend to avoid it when we are on our own, in our “free time”. Free time itself tends to become equated with freedom from activity, because activity is compulsion. Freedom is equated with the opposite of action and production; freedom is consumption, or just passive, mindless “fun”, or just blowing off steam. Only in class society is there such an equation of activity with pain and of leisure with inactivity or sloth, for activity under alienated labour is not self-expression but self-denial. All our capacities are parceled out into marketable skills. We talk about “human resources” or youth as “our most precious resource”, all of which pseudo-humanist jargon expresses the same reality, that human labour is turned into a commodity to be bought and sold like any other.

As this civilization moves on we get, of course, an ever finer and more detailed separation of hand and brain, of sense and intelligence, manifested in the truncated capacities of both masters and wage-slaves. Some people are likely to spend their entire lives developing the capacity to locate defects in the ends of cans. This becomes their forced contribution to the human species. And it is in this sense that we are not without cause, in the latest stages of capitalism, of thinking of ourselves as appendages of a machine. In a sense, capitalism involves a devolution even behind the work-animal. At least the work-animal is an enslaved total organism. Even a tool or a slave can be used to carry out many different things. But by the time you get to the highest stage of capitalism, human functions can be more dehumanized than that of a tool: you become the appendage of a machine, just part of a tool, a cog in the vast machine of production.

By many routes, then, alienation from the product and from the activity of labour lead up to and involve alienation in its third aspect, alienation from the self or from the human essence. It is not only the product that becomes an alien power. It is not only that self-development becomes self-denial. Internally related to these others is a loss of self. To alienate my labour-power, to be forced to sell it as a commodity on the market, is to lose my life-activity, which is my very self. It is to become other than myself. Sometimes we speak innocently enough of being beside ourselves or feeling remote from ourselves; or sometimes we use the language of the search for identity and authenticity, of not knowing who we are or not recognizing who we’ve become. From a Marxian point of view, we are talking about something social and historical rather than something metaphysical or existential. At a deeper level still, the sense of loss of identity or loss of meaning is an expression, but one still alienated itself, of our real loss of humanity, alienation from the human “species-being”, as Marx sometimes calls it. This is one thing Marxists mean when they talk about de-humanization.

There is a further aspect of alienation from self which Marx pays little attention to in his later work, but which receives some mention in the Manuscripts and remains important at an implicit level. And it is perhaps most appropriate to discuss it in relation to alienation from self. This further aspect is alienation from sensuousness. Marx conceives of the history of human labour as, among other things, a formation of the human senses themselves. The human senses are not passive mechanisms, a blank slate on which the world leaves its mark more or less clearly and strongly. Marx understands sense perception itself to be the outcome of a process of the labour of a historical subject. The sensuous forms in which we perceive things and their relations is therefore the product of the history of an active subject. The sense themselves are not given, once and for all, but open to education, broadening, refining, formation and re-formation.

If the senses themselves are a product of the process of human collective self-constitution, it is meaningful to speak of an alienation of sensuousness. In capitalist society, our life activity is alienated. As a result we engage in inherently sensuous activities, but in an alienated fashion, almost exclusively, that is, for non-sensuous, extrinsic, extraneous purposes. In order to satisfy virtually any need, we must in capitalist society, work through the medium of money. Most of the things we do, we do in order to make money or to put ourselves in the position to make money, or improve our capacities to make money. There is very little, if anything that a human being could imagine wanting, that is not offered to us as a possible object of a cash transaction. Thus the things with which we are engaged are never approached with an eye to either their own intrinsic value or to their human value in a broader sense. We do not relate most of the time to most things in terms of their intrinsically sensuous and aesthetic reality. The imperatives of capitalist society thus enter into our conscious and semi-conscious experience even at the level of sense and perception itself. We are taught to literally see and feel things as utilities, as abstract counters in the process of making still more money. We become alienated from what Marx calls our subjective human sensibilities. Our senses are not so much animalized or brutalized as they are mechanized. If our life-activity were our own, this would necessarily involve the intensive cultivation of our capacity for aesthetic appreciation of sensuous reality. Humans are, after all, according to Marx, the only species that can produce in conscious appreciation of the laws of beauty. Under alienated labour, sense experience becomes a modifiable sign for things and relations that can be turned into money, the sign of all things. Because our activity is degraded to the level of mechanical subservience to crude needs, or, in reaction to that we perhaps become aesthetes, we regard everything only from the standpoint of the use it can be put. Or we come to attach a perception of beauty or aesthetic value to that which commands a high price. We can be impressed with the supposed aesthetic value of something because it is expensive.

This relation to everything, even the objects of sense and beauty, in terms of its usefulness to the expanded reproduction of capital means we no longer have an eye for the thing itself. Oriented mainly to pieces of the world whose monetary value means that they are essentially interchangeable, we are brought that much more easily to relate to ourselves and each other in this way. We begin to evaluate ourselves and each other in terms of the amount of money we can make. Or parts of ourselves can be ranked in such terms. We are less able, if still able, to perceive and appreciate the intrinsic qualities of anything, even including ourselves. This dehumanization of the senses, and of perception and of judgement, is not something accidental to the dehumanization of humans.

We are thus led to the fourth aspect, alienation from other people, or from society. Once the traditional community (which understood itself as natural) is broken down, human beings become essentially potentially useful or threatening objects. One can now have enemies in a new sense. Only with the breakdown of primitive communism does man become a wolf to man. “Man is a wolf to man” (homo homini lupus ) was one of Hobbes’s favourite sayings. “Wolflike” behaviour can and does occur in “primitive” societies and between such societies, but it is not the principle of those societies. It does become the central and organizing principle of class societies. In the market it is hard to say that the antagonism of classes becomes more severe, but the antagonism among individuals certainly increases. Now, according to Marx, “human nature” must be grasped as “the ensemble of social relations”. It is not simply our neuro-physiological constitution or our DNA that makes us behave or act selfishly. We live, according to Marx, in a society in which each individual must see in every other, not the possibility of his liberty, but its limitation. Every other becomes an obstacle to me, but – and this is important too – a needed obstacle, a customer, a client, a creditor, a debtor, an employer or employee. (We haven’t even come up with a better replacement for patriarchalist terms such as husband and wife than “partner” – which suggests nothing so much as a boardroom full of lawyers). The other is a rival. It is not that cooperation here is impossible. In fact we learn to coordinate our activities on an ever more grand scale and complex level. It is that this cooperation can only take place as the coincidence of separate and competing “enlightened” self-interests.

In feudal society, or in Aristotle’s polis, one’s life-activity was directly determined by one’s pre-ordained social status. Along with this, however, came a solidary bond integrating the occupants of the various strata. The lord-peasant relationship was a direct, personal bond of two-way loyalty and duty (and even affection). The exploitation of the peasant was an integral part of a patriarchal relation. Even though the solidarity of such societies was a pseudo-solidarity, a solidarity based upon exploitation, it was still a solidarity. What the market society does is to relentlessly smash the patriarchal links between lord and peasant. Each individual is to be thrown upon his own resources in order to make his fortune or not, as the case may be. The market society severs the patriarchal link between lord and peasant, lord and lord, peasant and peasant, and substitutes for it the cash nexus. For the personal relationship is substituted one of personal indifference. The bottom line of the contractual relationship is cash. Previously the worker worked for the community either directly or in personal subservience to his superior, and the subservience of labour was an essential feature of a community felt to have the unity of an organism. Previously it was assumed that community was only possible as the subordination of one social organ to another.

Now, however, my work is not service. Now I work for money, which I will spend any damn way I feel like. As a result, for Marx, although this is in one way a less illusory of living, since it doesn’t need to depend on religious or mythical foundations to justify an explicit and clear hierarchy, in another way it is more illusory. My freedom is largely only in appearance. In reality my life-activity is still given up to a superior who is a superior, even though he is formally and by law my equal. In his later work, Marx will especially concentrate on the fact that everything is translated into money terms, and that all relations are mediated by money. In capitalist society, he says, “everyone carries the social bond in his pocket.”

Although Marx does not in the 1844 Manuscripts make the point directly and explicitly, there is a direct connection between Marx’s thoughts on alienation from society and his critique of the state. Those who wish to follow this theme further should read On the Jewish Question. For Marx, the existence of the state implies what we could call a political alienation. Often the Marxian notion of the abolition or the withering away of the state is met by the sort of puzzled reaction one might reserve for the abolition of the sun, moon and stars. But Marx would not call the operation of something like Rousseau’s general will a state. The form of direct self-government comprised in the idea of the sovereignty of the general will would not be considered a state form. The state, according to Marx, is the set of institutions that arises in order to hold together a society that is continually falling apart. The state is a function of other, deeper social antagonisms that are in principle corrigible. It is a function of the universal individual antagonisms of class societies, but especially a function of class division itself, and of the possibility of open class antagonism. The state is a necessary means of coercion and coordination once society can no longer hold itself together by other means, or before it has learned how to do so once again.

The state is an integral part of class society, not something apart from or beyond it; not something neutral and capable of standing disinterestedly above all particular interests. Whereas theorists like Hegel would argue that in the modern state individuals were in actual reality reconciled and unified, Marx maintains that the state is necessary only because of the real antagonisms class societies generate and sustain among individuals. Nor do individuals in the modern, liberal or even democratic-capitalist state really find a community of equals. Instead, in the state, they come together to deny the inequality and separateness that is their real existence in social and economic life. Their coming together in the political community of the state is thus an illusion, because they are separated in fact. The solidarity of earlier, more organic forms of society is supposedly recovered, in bourgeois society, in the political relationship of free and equal citizens. But this is a pseudo-solidarity, given the lie by the many substantial inequalities outside the formal equality established by constitutional law, and by the fact that the powerful within the private sphere have the power to reach out and have the state work primarily in their fundamental interests. As the French writer, Anatole France once said, “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from begging alms, stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.” It is only because in real life people are alienated from one another through the cash nexus that is increasingly the only thing that connects them, that they must solidarize in an ideal and false unity a formally equal citizens.

Here the notion of an “inverted” or “double” world appears that will become important later on in Marx’s notion of “commodity fetishism”. As a corrective to, and also as a mystification of, a contradictory reality, a supplementary but illusory reality is invented and, as it were, laid on top of the first. What is illusory is not the actual power of the state, but the notions that the state is the only thing that can hold a society of human beings together, and that it can do this while sustaining and expressing the freedom and equality of all its citizens. The state is just such an illusory reality, existing by virtue of the misperception that the antagonisms of bourgeois society are the natural and inevitable, eternal and essential antagonisms of human beings as such. And, in truth, it is a necessary and real illusion – to bourgeois society. Thus, the state cannot be abolished, as some anarchists would have it, by the fiat of individuals. The abolition of the state depends on the prior transformation and abolition of class society. The state functions essentially to maintain society in its present form, as a society based upon class divisions rooted in the way material life is produced and reproduced. But the abolition of class society and its state would not mean the disappearance of differences or of the need for politics. If anything politics would be more prevalent than ever (as opposed to the administration of a subject population) – if what we mean by politics is something like individuals communicating and acting together to resolve conflicts between human needs and social conditions. The existence of processes through which individuals decide upon common policies and common action is not what Marx would call the state.

[etirabys]

The solution to “the lesbians I read about aren’t horrible enough” is, of course, to roll your own. Here’s what I’ve been dreaming up recently (warning: this story idea was simply formed by throwing together every lesbian fiction nutrient I currently feel deprived of, I have not designed it to be ‘good’ at all):

Frances Hareva is a military strategist for the ruling planet of an interplanetary civilization, Mars Delta. Actually, she’s not the military strategist – Zlanna is. Zlanna is the AI who takes input from a massive interplanetary surveillance network and provides most of the brainpower for the job. But the values and core decisionmaking is provided by a human hooked up to Zlanna, who is constantly trained for alignment with the collective will of her planet. Some three years into this extremely demanding job that's damaging her brain in certain ways, Frances orders a hit on a ruling family of a rebellious colony planet, Ftam Quedir. She leaves alive the adoptive daughter, Safi.

Safi is a product of heavy genetic engineering, and Frances predicts she will become an influential moderate representative of pro-gene-engineering, an ethical and material issue that's promising to be divisive enough to lead to interplanetary war. Frances has had very little meaningful human contact for several years, and while doing a job that involves spying on millions of people, some of the people she watches have drifted into the friend-shaped hole. Something that is not quite apparent to her superiors, or to Frances herself until she recommends/orders the assassination, is that she’s become very fond of Safi while surveilling the Quediram clan, and has clouded judgment about her.

Soon after making that call, Frances has a nervous breakdown that impedes her relationship with the AI, and is quietly shipped off to a university to spend all her efforts getting an art degree under a false name, which her superiors figure is a humane way of getting rid of her in a way that doesn't embarrass them.

Safi had an ambiguous relationship with her family, who took her in and gave her a very good life, but also were terrible in some ways. Several months into growing into an interplanetary activist of the exact type that Frances expected her to be, Safi realizes that someone meant to set her on this life path by killing her family, rage quits, and disappears from the public eye. She spends time tracking down everyone involved in the hit so she can ruin their lives. She's 18 and a hothead, more than Frances knew.

Frances is on the top of the hit list, so Safi enrolls in the university she's hiding out at as an undergrad (thereby, yes, making this a college fic – look, I've always wanted to write one), also in disguise. She manages to make contact with Frances by enrolling in a class with her. Frances obviously recognizes her but has no idea what Safi is doing here; Safi's first layer of disguise to almost everyone is "normal vaguely foreign student", her second layer of disguise to Frances specifically is "Safi, but she wants a normal life for a while and an education on the ruling planet, and has no idea who Frances is".

There's some dancing around for a while where Safi befriends Frances, maybe roping her into some intensive and actually interesting school project. Safi spends these months trying to ruin Frances's life in RELATIVELY MUNDANE, PETTY WAYS like guilt-tripping her, getting her apartment burgled, and outing her in a planetary culture where being a lesbian is mildly to moderately stigmatized because it's strongly associated with the semi-fringe monarchist movement, all while observing her to design a coup de grace optimized to make Frances as miserable as possible. Meanwhile, in normal life, they are forming a surprisingly strong connection. (They may make out a bit at this point, Safi arranging it so that Frances immediately turns her down but gets flustered and guilty about it, because Safi is playing a sexually inexperienced undergrad who'll be crushed if the first gay contact she tries to make goes badly.)

Safi quickly figures out that, after all that work tracking down her nemesis, Frances is a total wreck of a person who isn't at all satisfying to ruin because she’s already a huge mess. Lots of rage sloshing around with nowhere to go. Also by this point they definitely want to bang each other and are horrified by it. There's a big confrontation where they shed their secret identities, where Safi really lays it in and then leaves. Frances, in the aftermath, decides that her redemption lies in shaping up and being a satisfying enemy for Safi to take down, and so does everything she can to get herself together and become the perfect political rival...

("Eti, please stop, we get it, you kink on –")

With Frances taking the lead on the shape of their new relationship, Safi steps into the dance, into a Locke-and-Demosthenes dynamic where what they say in public is largely reflective of real personal differences in opinion, but also a deliberate partnership to optimize the debate between them itself to lead their civilization away from war. They do this without ever coordinating personally on their goals.

(They say things like "That said, Miss Frances, I cannot wait to take your argument apart. You have published a 35 page supplementary tract on your views since then and I have read it with interest. ... Attached is my 44-point list of objections, follow up questions, and what I believe to be convincing takedowns to the general Mars Deltan audience with an open mind.")

// At this point I lose conviction in what happens next – I’ve filled something out but it’s not inspired, the stuff I really care about is [gestures above].

This is the case for the next several years or so. They are completely and stupidly obsessed with each other and spy on each other. Safi goes and has a defiantly prolific sex life, hoping that Frances will be upset about it. Frances, incidentally, is not, but she tries to return the favor by going on some dates (which Safi does get het up about) although she's too demi to actually sleep with anyone. Eventually, they start a secret line of correspondence – probably Safi starts it after Frances misses too many therapy appointments and says something snippy about it – that over time turns into what's undeniably love letters.

At some point, one of them has a real personal crisis and the other one just materializes at their doorstep. The one who's having a crisis ignores everyone else, grabs their visitor's hand, and pulls her into the bedroom. They don't leave for a couple of days.

More faffing about Whether We Can Do This, which is rendered moot by the fact that they find it impossible to stay away from each other. Agony. Frances comes up with a long, multi-year plan for arranging their public lives to intersect in a way that naturally culminates in their getting married. Safi shoots off five emails arguing about the pre-nup and quibbling about the strategy, before belatedly realizing that Frances just proposed marriage and Safi... wanted it so obviously much that she never even considered contesting the premise of the plan.

There are some hiccups but they execute this fine and get married. Oh shit oh shit oh shit what now. Frances might be sufficiently neuroatypical that, Derek Parfit style, she can't handle actually living with her spouse and they largely conduct their relationship over the phone and meet once a week to talk irl, cuddle, and fuck.

[casualarsonist]

Postal 2 review

Postal 2 was released right in the middle of what should have been my prime teenage-edgelord years, but while it’s had a resurgence in popularity due to nostalgia, returning to it, the game strikes me now exactly as it did then - a forgettable and borderline broken, amateurish piece of software that was crowded out of all but the most fringe playerbases by other, better, more interesting games.

Postal 2 is Hatred, if Hatred mistakenly thought it was funny - it was a try-hard attempt at outrunning South Park in a race no-one was watching. The irony is that in hindsight South Park turned out to be tedious fence-sitting ‘all sides are equally stupid’ takes from a pair of moron Gen Xers who thought that not having a strong opinion about anything was cool and were also responsible for mass-marketing anti-semitism to an entire generation. It was seen as edgy and provocative in the 2000s, and now it’s laughed at for its rigid, pointed adherence to committing nothing of value to any issue. And in trying to out-do Parker and Stone the developers of Postal 2 shackled themselves to the exact same sinking ship.

The game is…not great. It’s ugly, and poorly put-together. There are constant issues with controls and soundtrack - you can hear the audio clicking repeatedly in the opening minutes of the game because whoever did the sound design stitched together a bunch of stock sound effects and didn’t crossfade the adjoining tracks. The same 3 second soundbite of a bird repeats endlessly - noticeable because it is the only sound playing as you tour through the town. And while there is something to be said for the effort put into programming all the systems that go towards simulating the mundanity of everyday life (and towards your disruption of that mundanity with a can of gasoline and a box of matches), this was an indie game with a certain amount of ambition developed before crowdfunding could turn these games into something worth playing. It’s tedious, but not in the way the developers intended - it’s tedious mechanically, like playing in a small, ugly, sadistic sandbox. The most interesting thing you discover about it is that doing everyday tasks like shopping for milk, and burning everyone in the town alive, are actions that get boring at exactly the same rate as one another.

That said, I think there’s a certain amount of accidental Tom Green-esque avant-garde nihilism in the absurdity of this game. It’s kind of funny to watch the 'Parents For Decency’ whip out pistols and try to murder every member of the Running With Scissors development team because they don’t like their violent games. That’s genuine satire - it actually says something real, and, because the 'think of the children’ groups are usual comprised of wealthy conservatives trying to avoid caring about actual tangible suffering in the world, the commentary kicks upwards at a group that will otherwise avoid any punishment for their hypocrisy. The icing on the cake is that you can then choose to kill them in self-defence, proving that you’re exactly the thing they were protesting. Postal 2 has something to say occasionally. Very occasionally. But then give it a few hours and you’re murdering dozens of shrieking racist stereotypes of Afghanis that all look like Osama Bin Laden.

If you kill 30 people from every type of skin colour you get an achievement called 'Sheriff Arpaio would be proud’. I had to google his name because I thought he he was a mass murderer with some kind of pointedly indiscriminate political agenda. Nope - he was a white Sheriff in Arizona who specifically profile non-white people in one of the most widespread examples of open racism in American law enforcement since segregation was made ‘illegal’. And given recent history, that’s saying something. He alone cost the taxpayers of his one county $140 million dollars via lawsuits brought against him. The fucking U.S. Justice Department sued him. If I hadn’t researched that I wouldn’t have realised he was actually a massive racist asshole who specifically targeted Hispanics and black people, because Running With Scissors made a false equivalence in their throwaway gag that just happens to mislead the player about the racist crimes of the person they’re referencing. 'Sheriff Arpaio would be proud’…because it was a numbers game? Yes, that’s what he liked. Persecuting *everyone* - as many people as possible, and not one very specific demographic of people.

I’m not saying that this stupid joke intentionally whitewashes the racism of its namesake, and I’m not saying that this, coupled with the developers’ portrayal of Middle Eastern people as homogenous terrorists screaming gibberish through the singular face of a mass murderer is in any way an explicit demonstration of their edgelord racist worldview. I’m not saying that, in the same that I’m not saying that a crack-smoking, dog-kicking, wife-abusing, spree-killer living in a trailer in any way reflects their perspective towards the poor, and that this entire game is one big middle-finger to everything the developers personally dislike. I’m saying that there’s a marked difference between forcing players to kill brown people because they’re all terrorists and forcing players to kill white people because they’re vegetarians. Or have red hair. Jesus that was such a 2003 joke wasn’t it?

At the very least, the panel of people who mindmapped the ideas that came together to form the foundational commentary of Postal 2 are dumb as dogshit, and the end result of that is 'whoopsie we’re slaughtering dozens of Muslims ho ho ho the Indian food store has Afghani suicide bombers in it all these people are the same skin colour Sheriff Arpaio did a bad thing to *lots of different people!*’

Isn’t it interesting that a game touted as a free-for-all and remembered for it’s 'all sides are bad’ South Park-esque 'sick of the system’ worldview actually depicts its town exactly from the perspective of one very specific demographic of people - the single most represented demographic in the American population: middle-class straight white male Gen Xers who feel disenfranchised but are also ardently pro-America, hate the poor despite not being wealthy themselves, hate the rich for being richer than them, hate 'rednecks’ for being too uncivilised, hate 'conservatives’ for being too stuck-up, and hate liberals for not fitting into a stuck-up conservative worldview. When you think of yourself as the lone, correct singularity trapped in the centre of a world filled with people who are wrong because they care too much about things you don’t like to think about, literally every other person on the planet becomes a potential threat. Your life is given meaning by the feeling of persecution this constant target on your back brings. And it’s a lot easier to take your anger out on a toothless social group than to comprehend your own lack of identity - to make fun of 'gingers’ and vegetarians like you were born yesterday rather than do anything legitimately rebellious or anti-establishment. Particularly if your specific demographic is the one nearly all media is catered towards. Movies are telling you that you’re the hero, but your miserable job tells you that you’re just a rube. Who’s to blame? Don’t bother thinking about it, because you might end up on a crusade, and you don’t want to be like those losers who keep going on about their problems. Make a game in which you kill all those people instead. That’ll teach em.

Postal 2 is the kind of stand-up comic that gets heckled for telling an offensive joke and then threatens to shoot-up the audience if they won’t stop booing him. It was made - poorly even for the time - by a bunch of clowns playing to the easiest possible audience: white edgelords. It’s a power fantasy for people who don’t have anything meaningful to fight for, so they fight gingers. Y'know, because South Park did it. Nazis are funny, gingers are bad. Everyone is wrong, stick to the middle. The middle of a spectrum. The middle of the road. The middle of a river as it sweeps you out to sea. It’s all the same.

2/10