#not for a specific element per se

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Do you think the colour of a polyjuice potion says anything about a person?? I just remembered that Harry's turned a bright gold and wondered if it meant anything

Yes, I think the color does say something about a person (and also the taste). We know different people cause the potion to turn different color and taste:

“Ooh, you look much tastier than Crabbe and Goyle, Harry,” said Hermione, before catching sight of Ron’s raised eyebrows, blushing slightly, and saying, “Oh, you now what I mean—Goyle’s potion looked like bogies.”

(DH, Ch4)

So, let's look at all the Polyjuice potions we see.

Harry Potter:

Harry dropped the hair into the mudlike liquid. The moment it made contact with its surface, the potion began to froth and smoke, then, all at once, it turned a clear, bright gold. [...] Ron, Hermione, Fred, George, Fleur, and Mundungus drank. All of them gasped and grimaced as the potion hit their throats.

(DH, Ch4)

Bellatrix Lestrange:

“She tasted disgusting, worse than Gurdyroots! Okay, Ron, come here so I can do you . . . .”

(DH, Ch26)

Mafalda Hopkirk:

Hermione drank the Polyjuice Potion, which was now a pleasant heliotrope color [purple]

(DH, Ch12)

Millicent Bulstrode's Cat:

The potion hissed loudly like a boiling kettle and frothed madly. A second later, it had turned a sick sort of yellow

(CoS, Ch12)

Vincent Crabbe:

Crabbe’s a dark, murky brown.

(CoS, Ch12)

Gregory Goyle:

Goyle’s turned the khaki color of a booger

[...]

Pinching his nose, Harry drank the potion down in two large gulps. It tasted like overcooked cabbage

(CoS, Ch12)

And Ron actually calls the Polyjuice someone's "essence":

“Urgh — essence of Millicent Bulstrode,” said Ron, eyeing it with loathing. “Bet it tastes disgusting.”

(CoS, Ch12)

And I think he isn't far off.

I think Polyjuice does reveal the "essence" of a person in a way.

Hair and nail clippings have been used in irl alchemy (there are theories that the "hair" is a code name to refer to other minerals and it's sometimes unclear, but sometimes it definitely refers to hair. Really depends on the book) for centuries. Now, hair represents a residue of the body. When taken from a living person (like with polyjuice) the hair would represent the person, who they are.

Albertus Magnus (13th-century alchemist) wrote that more gold can be found in the hair taken from a human's head. Now, the gold he wrote about isn't actually gold, but gold in alchemy refers to purity. Basically, human head hair is good for extracting the pure essence of a person. Like Aristotle, he calls hair mostly a mix of Earth and Water — the elements of the physical plane, the body. But head hair, specifically, due to it's closeness to the brain is more than just the physical aspect. It's mostly the physical aspects, but it includes elements of the spirit of the person.

So, head hair is the best way alchemically to get the purest essence of someone's appearance (body and a bit of spirit).

So what do we learn about characters from their polyjuice?

Well, bitter people, taste bitter. Crabbe, Goyle, Millicent, and Bellatrix all tasted terrible according to the Golden Trio. They tasted terrible because they were terrible people.

What I want to note a bit here, is that Harry's didn't taste great either. Better than Crabbe, Goyle, or Bellatrix, but the Order is still described as gasping and grimacing at the taste. My guess, due to the language used, is that the taste of Harry's polyjuice wasn't exactly bad, per se, but was kinda strong and unexpected. What the taste was, we unfortunately don't know, nor could I find the color of the potion for Bellatrix (my guess would be an almost black dark green that's a bit translucent like you added a bit of coloring to water). But, let's look at the colors we do have.

Crabbe - Murkey Brown. Goyle - khaki color (both shades of brown), Millicent's cat - sickly yellow, Mafalda - a pleasant deep purple, and Harry is gold, but I'll keep him for last.

Brown (both Crabbe and Goyle) is reliable, simple, stable, and consistent. But it's also boring, dull, timid, and predictable. Since both are described as ugly browns, the intention is to evoke the negative symbolism of brown.

Yellow can be optimistic, intelligent, and warm, but it can also be cowardly and deceptive. Millicent's cat's yellow is specifically described as a sickly yellow — so, to me, it suggests her cat's unpleasant. But it's also not a potion meant to be used with animal hair, so who knows.

A purple like Mafalda's is interesting. It's described as a nice color, the positive symbolism of purple includes: wisdom, compassion, and royalty. But purple can also symbolize: oversensitivity, immaturity, or hypervigilance. I think, what it says about Mafalda is that she is a pleasant and compassionate person who is just invested in a shitty institution (the ministry). From the color of her potion, it seems she isn't a bad person. Additionally, heliotropes represent the sun, fire, and abundance — positive things.

Now, Harry's potion tuning gold is one of these really interesting things. You see, in Alchemy gold is everything that is pure and good and perfect. Gold is the purest form all materials want to achieve. The Philosopher's Stone, the symbol of immortality and perfection (it's the perfect material), can turn anything into gold. The Elixer of Life produced from the stone, in theory, would be in gold in color. Gold is the color of immortality and purity and perfection. It's the sun and fire and life and abundance and good fortune. Gold is the cure-all and be-all. Alchemists considered it indestructible, pure, and perfect:

But the alchemists were most deeply impressed by its apparent indestructibility: it does not tarnish in air or water, is not appreciably volatilized or oxidized in melting, and is not attacked by any chemical reagent then available. It was therefore regarded as the 'perfect' metal.

(Prof. Dorthy Wyckoff note in her translation of The Book of Minerals by Albertus Magnus)

This honestly really strengthens my theory that Harry was always the Master of Death. If the color that represents Harry's essence (his body and spirit, aka life) is gold — the color of immortality, perfection, and purity — it means he already is in his perfected form. He already is the Philosopher Stone AKA Master of Death.

See, in alchemy, in the process of making the Philosopher's Stone, the alchemist is also working on themselves. The work is both on the minerals and on the alchemist. The alchemist would become their perfect, purest self while doing the "Great Work" and would only be able to create the Philosopher's Stone when they themselves, are also their purest ("golden") selves.

What I'm saying is that Harry, by his essence being bright gold, is implied to already be there at the perfection point. He is already at the point where he could make the Philosopher's Stone. So, him being the MoD and already sorta immortal, just really fits that.

Even in the world of HP the color "gold" is associated with immortality. The fire from Harry and Voldemort's wands is gold because of the Phoenix Feather core. Phoenix's in HP are associated with gold, which also connects gold to immortality. Again, this all hints at Harry being the MoD all along.

[imagopersonal]

Give me coffee or give me death

I don’t believe in the Coffee Theory per se. I think the whole ‘drugged coffee’ thing is a bit too spy movie to be in Good Omens, but- BUT

The fact that that coffee is in the intro;

The fact that you can see The Metatron in line, waiting for his turn, BEFORE he gets into the coffee shop, like if he was an out of place detail you were supposed to notice and ask yourself questions about;

The very long and apparently superfluous dialogue about choosing coffee instead of death, and how “predictable” that is;

The fact that for two seasons we NEVER see Aziraphale drinking coffee, like that’s not his thing, that’s Crowley’s thing, he’s the “six-espressos-in-a-big-cup” guy, Aziraphale drinks hot chocolate or tea, and we have to assume The Metatron knows that, because he went into that coffee shop and asked for such a specific thing that makes you think that’s something he chose specifically for Aziraphale (who still doesn’t drink coffee, so why?).

He looks reluctant at the idea of drinking it at first

but he accepts it out of courtesy, I presume, and this is the face he makes when he tries it:

Even he is surprised he liked it. He’s on Earth since 6000 years, so we can assume he tried coffee before and chose not to drink it. He’s either lying about liking it out of courtesy, or this is the only coffee he’s ever enjoyed, and The Metatron knew he would have liked it and chose that coffee on purpose.

So, the coffee is either important as a physical element, as something that had an actual effect on Aziraphale and changed him somehow, or it’s important in its metaphorical significance. In Good Omens almost everything is metaphorical, so the second option is very likely.

Now, what’s the coffee supposed to represent? The only certain thing we know, is that the coffee is something The Metatron offers Aziraphale, so it probably represents the offer he’s about to make.

Considering the whole “Does anyone ever choose death?” conversation, considering the fact that we don’t know how the conversation between The Metatron and Aziraphale went, we only know the version Aziraphale chooses to tell Crowley, and considering The Metatron is the angel that decided to erase Gabriel’s memory just because he said “nah” about Armageddon 2.0 and Aziraphale is the traitor, the one who stopped the Armageddon 1.0, so The Metatron has no reason to be friendly with him, my question is:

Did Aziraphale actually have a choice?

Or the alternative was worse than leaving Crowley and the bookshop?

Was it actually coffee or death?

[togglesbloggle]

Voltaire's Prayer

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." -Volaire’s letter to Étienne Noël Damilaville, 16 May 1767

I’m inordinately fond of sex, in the political sense.  It’s saved us so often from the worst parts of ourselves.

As far as anti-authoritarian elements of the human experience go, sex is right up there with curiosity and the search for truth- maybe even more so.  When a new tyrant comes to town, shutting down the universities and the libraries is only the second thing they try.  The first thing is to regulate human sexuality to within an inch of its life.  Rules for marriage, rules for courtship, rules for which genitals may touch and where they may touch and when they may touch.  Rules for who and rules for whom.  Rules for which kinds of sex must doom characters in literature, rules for which things may be described as sexy, rules for which things may be described in a sexy way.

Of course they do!  If you’re trying to bind a large polity together under a common ideological narrative, to render people predictable enough to quash dissent and legible enough to exert power through them, the last thing you need is a bunch of folks running around being horny about stuff without permission.  Nature gifted us with a great capacity for reason and community; we have the innate opportunity to learn about ourselves and our neighbors, and to form complex societies based on that understanding.  It was Aristotle who first called us the political animal, and the fruits of that extraordinary capacity will always be within our reach, if only we can come together within a shared understanding.  The invention of the city is the great triumph of our species, and with it we conquer the universe.

But also this extraordinary, reasoning mind has been sculpted from the raw clay of a biology that’s anchored in sexual reproduction, and this ends up being very, very funny.

The problem isn’t so much that the sex instinct exists, per se.  It’s how it’s implemented.  Like most biological forms, the full complement of 86 billion(!) neurons in your brain aren’t encoded in a particular configuration; the brain is much too complex to be described so precisely in the only ~725 megabytes or so of human DNA.  The particular shape of your brain is in there somewhere- the lobes and subregions responsible for vision, memory, cognition, all that- but only up to a point.  The genius and fundamental limitation of genetics is that, below a certain level, the genes instead describe a process for the production and reproduction of specialized cells, and simply constructs them in such a way that they can be relied upon to order themselves as they go.

This is all well and good when we’re talking about kidneys and livers, but the fact that you can encode any kind of specific behavioral instinct in a brain this way is nothing short of a minor miracle.  Think about it!  Spiders don’t have a ‘spider web’ gene, the gene is for ‘proteins that come together in self-assembling electrochemically sensitive gelatin tissue which, when complete, encodes patterns that operate organ systems such as legs and spinnerets in such a way as to reliably create silk webs.’  This is absurdly impressive, and also completely insane.

What I’m getting at is, powerful behavioral instincts in a complex animal aren’t precise instruction manuals by which we pursue evolutionarily advantageous behaviors.  Sex and eros are prior to logic or language, let alone strategy.  Sex is a double-thick electrical wire discharging lightning bolts right through the middle of our cognitive centers, installed in the brain by a surgeon wearing mittens.  It’s an untethered firehose whipping chaotically through the cathedral, unpredictably spraying golden reliquaries with substances unmentionable.  It’s the first and greatest anarchist.

I really can’t overstate my gratitude for this.

Obviously this results in any number of deeply goofy outcomes by way of kinks and odd sexual practices- it gets tangled with pain centers, with random bits of anatomy and proprioception, with our taboos and aversions, with our greatest terrors or our greatest yearnings or just arbitrary stimuli from adolescence, and of course it gets enmeshed so often with our notions of power and submission.  It imbues these things with a fascination and potency out of all proportion with their mundane meanings.  And ultimately, you end up with human pleasures and human values that diverge so far from banal evolutionary imperatives as to be all but unrecognizable.

Even when this process somehow manages to propagate through the brain in such a way as to drive behaviors that are legibly aligned towards some adaptive constraint- e.g. heterosexual mating practices resulting in biological reproduction and careful childrearing- it’s still madness.  Love and sex penetrate deeply across tribal and national and racial boundaries, across economic interests, across battle-lines and enmities.  We become traitors, apostates, emigrants, and artists.  Declare a law, and in short order some hot-headed young people come along to break it in the name of sexual passions you could not possibly have seen coming.  Divide your neighborhood into us and them, and by the time the ink is dry on your proclamation there will be a forbidden relationship across the fence.  There is no social order, no ethical system, no theory of human nature that can entirely withstand contact with the full spectrum of human sexuality, because sex and eros are always going to be exactly as bonkers as the complexity of the human mind and culture will allow, plus a little extra just to be sure.

This isn’t always a delight, of course.  Many prohibitions exist for a very good reason, and the chaos of human sexuality makes no exemptions for true evil.  Some of us end up really, truly victims of this process.  But for all the dangers, the chaos at the root of all this isn’t oriented towards evil.  Chaos just means chaos, essentially arbitrary and hence absurd in character.

And in the grand analysis, we are so lucky to have this thing moving through our communities, this ridiculous madness that guarantees that there will be cracks in every wall and slips exploding cigars in the pockets of the powerful few.  Not in everybody as individuals, of course, and not everybody the same amount; asexuality is certainly one of the outcomes that all this mad gallivanting through our brains can produce.  Sexuality would never be so predictable as to guarantee its own existence, after all.  That’s part of what makes the joke so funny.

But all of us, regardless of sexuality, get to live in a world where the grand anarchy of sex is constantly driving home this lesson that no category is inviolate and no law is perfect.  That we should not and cannot take ourselves too seriously, or forget that we’re animals.  That we don’t exist only for the sake of others, or within their understanding.  That cities are made of cooperation, grace, and forbearance- not conformity or mere compliance.

People sometimes worry about immortality.  In the political sense, I mean.  They worry about eternal dictatorships and unconquerable gerontocracies.  This fear isn’t entirely unjustified; death has often played a role in progress and liberation.  But as long as enough of us are still getting horny without permission, still falling in love in stupid ways, I think we’ll be okay.  Romeo and Juliet don’t have to die at the end to make a difference in the world, as long as they’re brave enough to get weird with it.

[librarycards]

I like your point about something being "pretentious," because I also think the term is used only to silence people who are bringing around important ideas.

I've seen you defend the complexity of academic writing in disability studies, which I also love and advocate for. I'm curious, however, about how you make space for people with intellectual disabilities, reading disorders, and other disabilities that make it a lot more difficult to parse overly academic writing. I remember this came up for me specifically when I was reading Jaspir Puar's "The Right to Maim." It's complex, necessarily so, but I found it deeply inaccessible.

I wonder, can disability studies truly be inclusive if it conforms to norms of academic complexity while sacrificing readability and engagement directed towards individuals with intellectual disabilities? I don't know if there's an answer, and I'd love to hear of any recommended reading you have on making space for people who exist outside of traditional modes of academic knowledge and research in a field as diverse as disability justice and Mad studies.

this is a common question, and i'll try my best to do it justice here -

first and foremost, it's important to remember that disability studies is not an activist project, nor is it one primarily concerned with providing social/academic support to individual disabled people per se. it's an academic discipline with roots in critical theory, queer theory, and literary/cultural studies, with its own intellectual genealogy, roster of normative terms, and citational background. when people -- puar, for instance -- write books like 'right to maim,' they're not writing for a general audience, disabled or non-. they're writing for colleagues and students interested in a particular set of arguments, drawing on a particular set of sources, and operating under the assumption that one has already done the (disability studies, ethnic studies, (post)colonial studies) readings - and, if you haven't, that you'll avail yourself of the lit review portion before engaging deeply with the book.

in short, part of the issue many people have when it comes to disability studies and their frustrations with it is that they do not take it seriously as an academic discipline among other academic disciplines. being disabled doesn't make me a disability studies expert any more than being a human makes me an anthropologist. the inaccessibility, as it were, of disability studies is a result of its specialization. this specialization isn't a bad thing - it's what happens when a field has been built over generations, on the shoulders of earlier fields, and requires extensive background knowledge to engage with. there's really no way around that when it comes to niche scholarly disciplines about things deliberately obfuscated in "normal life." this doesn't mean that nothing can be done to support wider uptake of CDS ideas among activists beyond the academy, but it does mean that our collective liberation as disabled people cannot and should not rest on universal understanding of or agreement x y or z element of a specific scholarly text.

that brings me to the next question, which is mostly about bringing disability studies scholarship to disabled people outside the academy, especially those whose disabilities make it difficult to access higher education. i don't think there's a way around reading the difficult texts if you want to be well-read and familiar with disability studies - or any other field - simply because people don't use complex language and syntax for no reason. we need to make up words for things that never had words before. fortunately, however, there are ways to introduce difficult concepts stepwise and in community, namely, through coursework - because as much as these texts weren't meant to be read by non-experts, they were also not meant to be read alone.

in my own experience teaching disability studies to classes wherein many, if not most students, are disabled, the best way of introducing these concepts is with regular old pedagogical tools like scaffolding, introducing background reading, approaching topics socratically, and encouraging group discussion informed by outside reading and personal experience. it is often helpful to go sentence-by-sentence and break down a particularly salient paragraph, or return to a particular citation to understand where one author's points link up with another's. one might go from puar back to saïd, for example, and also forward/sideways to mel chen or nirmala erevelles. put simply, i think reading these works together - in classrooms, in groups, in pairs, or even alongside others who have analyzed them before you (there are tons of analytical essays about most of these books on academia.edu/google scholar for example!) is one of the most reliable ways to improve your comprehension, and is certainly the method i use to help students better understand what they're working with.

lastly, and i think most importantly, i want to stress that the way many undergrads are taught to engage with any theoretical discourse is really, really damaging. it's damaging to expect an eighteen-year-old to consume and instantly "get" ideas that take multiple lifetimes' of debate to get worked out, if ever. being confused, not-knowing, asking questions, getting frustrated, taking a break and coming back -- these are approaches which many disabled students in particular have been pathologized for, but are actually the best (and certainly most predictable) responses one can have to a challenging text. i did not understand a lot of puar the first time i read her. i have read right to maim several times now, and am still puzzling over new things. a great deal could be done to support inclusion in all of our fields if abled/sane/NT people would stop bluffing and admit that they get confused, too; what an opportunity for scholarly interdependence that would be.

anyways....that's a long answer about something i'm very passionate about, so thanks for reading if you did! my main advice is to keep chipping away at challenging texts, because the process of reading and comprehending, especially done in community, is worth it, and helps lay the groundwork / build the muscle for engaging more difficult texts in the future.

as far as more disabled/Mad scholars thinking about academic literacies/classroom accessibility, there's Mel Chen, whose recent monograph, Intoxicated, deals with research, brain fog, and cognitive disability; Margaret Price, OG Mad Studies powerhouse, has also written at length about both pedagogical and personal approaches to mental disability in the classroom, and recently published a book called "Crip Spacetime" that is functionally an exposé on academic inaccessibility of all sorts.

I would also like to strongly recommend my beloved friend and colleague Helen Rottier, who does disability studies scholarship and works at a university disability cultural center, typically with IDD students. We co-authored a paper on Mad pedagogy that should be coming out...someday? Publishing is slow. But definitely check her work and I'm sure she'd welcome questions from you if you wanted to reach out!

[corviiids]

hello! how do you find consistent friends in fandom? as in, how do you find people who stick with you through different fandoms and listen and read your work. also, how long have you been writing for and how long did it take you to get so good at writing and character analysis.... your work is such an inspiration to me, genuinely one of my top 3 authors across ao3. i hope the writing goes well!

hey! this is really sweet, thank you very much for your lovely kind words. 💖

re: friendship: i don't mean to be a downer about this so i hope it doesn't come across this way, but i do think the concept of friends where you follow each other through all your fandoms and continue to read each other's work etc kind of... either doesn't exist or is just a rare phenomenon and not a 'type' of friend per se more than it is something that just happens out of luck. i am lucky enough to have friendships which have persisted through all of us changing fandoms, but the reason those friendships last is actually because we found connections that went beyond common interests. i think sharing a fandom/interest is great as an initial point of connection and a way to meet, but for a relationship to last, you need to have a deeper bond than both being into the same thing--so contrary to what you've asked about (oops sorry) those friendships im speaking of only last because we didn't follow each other into different fandoms, really. we didn't have to. along the same vein, i'd respectfully argue that it wouldn't be productive or fair of me to group 'reading my work' in as an element of friendship, so to speak--i definitely don't expect my friends to read my fic and vice versa, we all understand that we can support each other in our creative pursuits and lives in general / in the abstract without needing to be a fan of the same things or even necessarily being fans of each other's work (although of course it's always nice). i know this doesn't really answer your specific question but i hope it doesn't come across as pessimistic as it might sound. i truly and genuinely believe it's a positive thing that the idealised friendgroup traipsing through fandoms together doesn't really exist (or if it does exist, it's luck and not something to shoot for in itself), because this just tells me to look out for these great opportunities to form bonds that last beyond superficial interests.

in terms of how to make those friendships to begin with, im honestly even less help. my friendships kind of just happened to me. im actually quite terrible at reaching out to people and i am notoriously difficult to reach myself hahaha so honestly all the credit for my friendships goes to my friends for being patient and sticking with me despite that. i am honestly just very lucky in that i've been able to talk out loud into the void and have had wonderful people reach out to me because of it, but that's hardly a reliable strategy... i guess i'd encourage you to be more like my friends, who are the anime protagonists wielding the power of friendship to my prickly antagonist, or whatever. oh another thing to remember i guess is that some friendships just don't last this way and will stay within fandoms and may peter out, and that's ok. i don't consider those relationships less real or valuable for being less lasting.

re: writing: i want to caveat that i don't think i'm fairly able to say (or comfortable saying) that i'm particularly good at writing or character analysis, certainly not to an extent that i'd be willing to hold myself up as an example of it, but i really appreciate that you feel that way about my work and am incredibly honoured to be considered an inspiration in any capacity!!

with that disclaimer made, i'll do my best to answer for whatever it's worth. i've liked writing ever since i was a very little kid, but i will credit any actual progress i've made in developing the skill to writing fanfic because i think that being able to focus on building character and logical flow in plot progression over other things like creating characters, worldbuilding, inventing plots wholesale, etc--which has allowed me to sort of expedite those skills in particular and which i think are helpful in writing more broadly. (this also answers the 'character analysis' part specifically--when you don't have to/get to invent a character, you have to spend more time taking them apart.) anyway, i started writing fic about twelve or thirteen years ago, and there have been periods within that where i've progressed faster or slower depending what's going on in my life haha. i do think time played a massive role in any skill developments i've made, but i also know people take less time or more time to make similar progress (caveat again: progression is subjective, this is very approximate), so i think the other key ingredient besides time is engagement. if it's helpful, i went into that a little bit more here, but as stated i have a lot more to learn and would never present myself as an expert lol

[saturnsbabyboii]

𐐪𐑂Astro Observations𐐪𐑂

｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡

(Life is like a butterfly...You go through changes before you become something beautiful)

｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡

𐐪𐑂 Despite people talking negatively about Pluto and Saturn, I find them to be the most important and beautiful planets. If you have ever felt hopeless or stuck, look into the position of these two in your chart. All of us struggle regardless, however, Saturn and Pluto bestow us with insight, lessons and knowledge we gain through that struggle and as a result we get to move on further into our journey.

𐐪𐑂 I have found people with earlier degrees on their ascendent tend to have larger frames while those later tend to have smaller ones. I am not talking specifically about weight and measurements per se but rather the general form.

𐐪𐑂 Although aspects act the same in general, it is very interesting when you look into the signs, elements and modalities involved. For example, Trine tends to bring abundance when in Water and in between inner planet but is an indication of overindulgence when it occurs from an inner planet to an outer one.

𐐪𐑂 Mercury opposite Mars "I am not angry! That is just my tone." Be mindful of how you sound and how you deliver your message. It is important to be honest, but it is also important to have tact.

𐐪𐑂 Even though people still dispute which placements determine our leaning towards extroversion and introversion, I have found that the houses and the planets falling in them suggest what are we more introverted about and what are we more extroverted in. Having multiple planets in a house could indicate a higher leaning to extroversion as the sense to express is very strong and immediate, as opposed to an empty house, one might be less inclined to share. The houses that contain only one planet tend to fall under the general energy of said planet and sign ruling over the house, indicating a higher sense of introversion as the person may desire to reflect on the themes of the house or would rather to practice them alone than with others.

𐐪𐑂 However, in case of overall introversion and extroversion, having more planets in Air houses (3rd, 7th, 11th) indicate high extroversion while in Fire houses (1st, 5th, 9th) indicate higher introversion. This may sound off as Fire signs are given the reputation of boldness, however, as the opposite of Air, Fire tend to itself. Introversion isn't anxiety and awkwardness (although it might include them), but rather it describes a person that isn't reliant on social communication, has a low need for others, desires independence, and excels on their own. Another thing, the themes of the 1st, 5th and 9th, relate to freedom, personal journey, creativity, ideologies, beliefs and the self. Meanwhile, the 3rd, 7th, and the 11th relate to unity, communication, the collective, collaboration, harmony and the "us".

𐐪𐑂 Cancer Risings give off favorite child vibes. Having Leo in the 2nd and Libra in the 4th house defiantly makes for the "golden child" trope.

𐐪𐑂 I believe that the degree of a planet has bigger affect on its core desire while the sign affects the manner that the planet translates or comes across. For example, Aries Mercury is usually is thought of as brash and abrasive or interested in things that have themes of violence and sex. However, when in an air degree this person can be much more interested in matters of communication, science, education and holds social rapport at a higher regard. The difference being that the Aries Mercury with the air degree might come across very detailed and articulate, perhaps even to the point of pretentiousness. Yet in matters of thinking they're much more thought out, factual and meticulous than the general Aries Mercury description.

𐐪𐑂 People with Chiron in the 9th house may need to leave their home country or cut off their family to begin healing.

𐐪𐑂 Every sign deep down is similar to their opposite. Aquarius desires to standout while Leo seeks to fit in and belong, Taurus enjoys today in fear of tomorrow while Scorpio wishes for a better tomorrow so they can finally enjoy their day, Capricorn works hard in hopes of creating a better home while Cancer works hard to ensure the comfort of their home, Aries seeks companionship through conflict while Libra seeks individuality through process of elimination, Virgo does practical things out of superstitious believes while Pisces engages in escapist and spiritual practices to better understand realistic demands, Gemini learns to mentor while Sagittarius mentors to learn. Granted, this is an overly simplistic form of explaining it but I hope it was able to better explain.

𐐪𐑂 Venus Aquarius not only desires but actually thrives off of creating bonds online.

𐐪𐑂 People with Jupiter in the 12th would take very long to learn life lessons. This is partly due to having to under go many cycles of self undoing and changes to finally get the lesson.

𐐪𐑂 People with Saturn in 3rd/9th may be untraditional students or enter university late or take time to graduate.

｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡｡⋆｡˚ ʚïɞ ˚｡⋆｡

[even-in-arcadia]

A Consideration of 1st Lt. Edward Little of HMS Terror (As Played by Matthew McNulty)

The thing about Lt. Edward Little is that he had the highest ideals and yet was set up in so many ways to fail them.  

We occasionally see glimpses of the man Edward Little must have been in order to be appointed First Lieutenant on a very prestigious expedition: reliable, capable, stalwart. 

He had that, before, when he was doing the job he was trained for, ie running a ship at sea.  What he hasn’t been trained for at all is managing 129 126 119 105 ? men stuck in pack ice in endless night, later trudging over ice and shale, trying to keep them busy and out of trouble and from getting killed by a demon bear.  Of course he’s out of his depth, but honestly aren’t most of them?  Of the lieutenants Gore (RIP) is the only one who seems to be in his element and he’s the only one with Arctic experience so that tracks.  Even Le Vesconte is getting by on charisma and the power of peer pressure, neither of which actually make for competent officering.  So that’s the scene he’s stuck in, and no wonder if he’s out of his depth.  

Then we have the circumstances specific to Edward Little.  He's spent the first two-plus years of the voyage as the first for a captain who is very depressed and increasingly alcoholic. As Crozier's state deteriorates and especially after Franklin dies, Little has to tread a very fine and somewhat blurry line. He has to cover for Crozier, picking up the slack that is inevitably dropped; he also has to prop Crozier up in such a way that his leadership as Captain isn't undermined with the crew. A big part of both of those is making sure that the right questions are being asked, that all practicalities are being factored in, but he has to ask those questions without seeming to question Crozier’s authority. Thus he must essentially be an acting captain without seeming to do so either to the men or to Crozier . He is not someone who wants power per se; in fact I think what he wants most is to be a good and competent 1st Lt. But because he's under an semi-incapacitated captain, he has no choice but to take on some of that power while appearing to be no more than a loyal lieutenant. He's leading without being seen to lead, and he's already seen Crozier flog three men for among other things insubordination and disrespect (and without due process).

(Continued below the cut, as this got very long)

Crozier has also put him in a position of having to lie - both directly and by omission! For example, when questioned he tells Fitzjames (who outranks him) "much to do on Terror is all” - leaving JFJ to draw his own conclusions on the source of that “much” and the extent to which it is falling on Little.  The instruction to procure more whiskey “discreetly” is nearly if not actually insulting in how far below Little's rank it is.  Having to do it “discreetly” is even worse.  He is being treated as an errand boy, and not just an errand boy but one tasked with something that is clearly unsavory, even illicit.   By ordering him to to this, he makes Little complicit in the very vice that is causing all of these problems, and Little by virtue of his position is unable to refuse any of these direct orders, even ones that are way below his station. (The fact that Jopson, Crozier's actual steward who was actually in charge of these things, was not given that task is also telling although I’m not sure of what - perhaps that Crozier wanted someone who outranked the Erebus’ steward to do the asking; perhaps that he felt some shame in asking Jopson.)

Through all of this, Little is having to cover for a man who continues to lose his own respect in ways both large and small, personal and professional. Crozier has endangered the crew for which Little feels himself bound to care - leading directly to Blanky losing his leg - and has spoken flippantly of the situation ("How fares the raft of the Medusa?"). In 1x04, he is clearly galled by both the disregard of due process and severity of Hickey’s punishment.  (While both are not unstandard in the Navy, Crozier’s manner makes it seem like spite as much as anything - which I’m sure Little clocked.)  Overall, Little observes him making inebriated decisions that are based as much on his internal demons as any the practicalities at hand while men continue to die under his watch. This erosion of trust will come back to haunt them all, because even when its causes have been overcome, the deep root and the effects are there. (JFJ gets to have reckonings with Crozier and say his piece in a way that Little never does or will.)

Edward Little also cares deeply about the welfare of his men, perhaps more than anything. Command is a responsibility not just to the navy but to those whose lives his decisions affect. And so he as he sees this disregard for them (and for himself) he is angry, and he is in a profession and position where one is not allowed to be angry with one's superiors. So he spends a lot of his time pretending that he is not quietly furious while carrying out orders that he knows he shouldn't be, and hiding it from everyone , even Fitzjames, because he is also, deep in his heart, loyal (even if he feels it is unearned) and married to Naval structures.  Crozier and JFJ have their reckoning, but Little never gets that, because subordinates aren’t allowed to be angry.  

This combination, the lack of trust both given and received, the anger, the care & loyalty, the necessity to fill the void in leadership, means that he asks a lot of questions . A well placed "Are you sure, sir?" can go a long way. "Yes, but--" is not a phrase that would often have been uttered to a commander by a lieutenant, but Little has not just earned but hard won the right to say it.  Every time he questions Crozier, I think it is out of a sense of duty, not defiance. A duty to the expedition, to Crozier, and above all to the men, because for so long Crozier’s judgement was not something he was able to rely on. He can’t even attend a sunrise party without thinking of the supplies that are being used up! 

To top everything off, he also never appears to be someone who is particularly congenial nor gregarious, he is very aware of his rank, and is competent while not being loved (except by me).  I like to imagine that he and Jopson and Macdonald were able to commiserate in some way as Crozier was going through his detox.  But everyone is so conscious of class & rank & secrets being guarded that it seems unlikely that anyone actually confided in each other. By getting dry and in such dramatic fashion, Crozier earns back his loyalty & respect, but by doing so in secret I wonder if he hasn't further eroded Little's relationship with the other lieutenants.  Do they even know Crozier is drying out or is Little lying to them as well as to the entire rest of the crew?  Little does not seem like a man who cares for lying, and covering up the captain's "gastritis" would only have made Little feel more cut off and burdened by the captain's confidence. (To say nothing of the fact that all of this is going on with the Tuunbaaq in the background - these lieutenants were not designed to contend with alcoholic spirits let alone the spirit world.)

 Crozier’s trust does often  end up being more burden than anything, and it’s beyond the responsibility that would normally come with his rank. That moment when he practically shoves the pistol away from him is so telling of this.  We really were robbed of the moment when Little is so angry after leaving Crozier that he can’t even slam his door: because that’s what’s building up this entire time!  

By covering for Crozier both before and during his sobering up, Little probably lost some of his authority over the crew. They know he's hiding something, and that earns some distrust. He's obviously worn out, and there must be some observation that Crozier is literally using him as an errand boy. In the best of circumstances the commanding-without-commanding is a hard line to walk while maintaining one’s own air of authority. He's also angry, and in working so hard to cover and subdue his anger, what he's left with is the "sad, wet man" that fandom has dubbed him. The crew may not know exactly what’s going on (although what do those men have to do besides gossip) but they must have sensed how Little is being worn away. As much as he cares for them, he wouldn’t fraternize - it seems like he barely fraternizes in the wardroom.  (Which is why that moment of camaraderie with Jopson outside Crozier’s cabin is so important to me personally.) 

That brings us to the mutiny.  We may love a sad, wet man, but in the face of a charismatic mutineer he's never going to match up. He doesn't have the authority, the love of the crew, or really the energy to go against it. At this point, he has no reason to know or suspect that a mutiny is what's the offing in the first place! He is someone who wants to believe the best of his men, and he's been given no reason to doubt Tozer's motives. And what was he supposed to do in the face of a marine sergeant surrounded by frightened, armed men?  They are clearly on edge and afraid, a dangerous combination.  He is practical, and although ultimately it loses him even more face by going along with Tozer, he was never going to be able to stop that in its tracks. Even JFJ wasn’t able to reel back in what had already been done.  So he chooses the pragmatic route: agree publicly to the logic, let Tozer do with him what he's been doing with Crozier, in making the subordinate's idea appear to be the superior's. With the situation and facts at hand, what else is he to do? 

The irony is that Little has been quietly looking out for all of them and their best interests for so long; but because it was so quiet, an undercurrent, when it comes down to brass tacks, none of them have ever seen that, or feel that they owe him any respect or loyalty. Tozer and Hickey appear to be men of action, and unfortunately in a moment like this a group of frightened men is going to follow the one who appears strongest. 

I also want to point out that Crozier specifically says *while the fog holds off*. Well the fog has rolled in! The situation changed! Crozier clearly has suspicions of Hickey and Tozer that he hasn't confided to Little, and whose fault is that! When it comes to investigating Irving’s and Farr’s murders, Little asks what the evidence is, which suggests to me that he has no knowledge of any concerns about Hickey that have arisen post-lashing.  Again, he is inclined to trust them.

One of the realest moments we get from him is "I'm the worst kind of sorry." It's one of the very few times he breaks from naval demeanor. The worst kind because he feels it deeply, but also because he was stuck, and he knows it, and also knows the expectations both from himself and from others that he be Better.

What it comes down to is what he says to Hodgson: "All we have are our instincts and training. If both told you to proceed with what you ordered, then be easy with yourself." That is all Little has had for so long. He certainly doesn’t seem to be having heart to hearts with Irving and Hodgson, let alone JFJ and Crozier; his counterpart on Erebus is long gone.  Who has he to confide in, especially at this juncture of events, when there are no clear paths and no right answers. I imagine this is what he told himself over and over in the long watches of the night.  

And yet!! Matthew McNulty has said that “Little's probably one of the most hopeful out of them all. [...] He still thinks that humanity will prevail in this dark, dark world.”  I’m not sure where to put this, but I think it’s important.  I think it’s part of why he doesn’t always quite have the authority he should: poor, worn down Edward Little sees the best and hopes for the best, and can’t quite reckon that not everyone has the same moral compass he does.  That’s why Tozer & Hickey get the best of him, because he wants to believe the best of them.  He doesn’t compromise his moral compass or belief in humanity, and unfortunately that turns into a blind spot.I think it’s also why Tozer invites him to join them: because some part of him recognizes that they both have that idealism deep down.  They are both doing their best in an inconceivable situation to cling to hope and take care of those they see as under their protection. It pains me to think what they could have accomplished had they worked together rather than against each other. 

(Incidentally, I don’t believe Little ever would have been swayed to join them, but I can’t blame him for the fact that Tozer’s claim about Crozier leaving them gave him pause.  He’s seen Crozier finally grow into a commander he can respect, but to find out that Crozier’s judgment was not just impaired for so long but extended to actively planning to abandon ship & crew, as Tozer frames, as he was working so hard to hold things together - even if he doesn’t believe it, in his heart of course there must have been some doubt.) 

All of these, the erosion of respect, the concern, the exhaustion, the lack of direction and support, the HOPE, come together in a moment for which he (unjustly, in my opinion) gets vilified for: 

We’ve slowed our pace hauling some of the ill in the boats. But if we extend this temporary camp more than a few days, we can allow the ill to rest here while the bulk of us proceed south. We can hopefully find game and trek back for the others once we have something more to offer them–

And Jopson’s anger is both understandable and not unwarranted - but. Based on that look Le Vesconte gives him, this most likely is not a thought that originated with Little.  It’s  being grumbled by those hauling, maybe even obliquely discussed by the officers.   That look says to me “It has to be said.”  And it does, the logistics are evident to everyone and that needs to be discussed.  They’re sending out hunting parties every day, sure, but in an area very close to the one they’re trekking through.  It genuinely does make practical sense to have some unencumbered, able-bodied (relatively) men go ahead quickly to what would hopefully be better hunting grounds, while the sick conserve what strength they have: those able to hunt could move quickly and bring back game, while those who are dying could do so while not being jostled about on boats on shale.  Little does not say (and, I think, would never say) that they should leave them behind entirely: only that this current system isn’t really helping anyone (and it isn’t).  He needs to make sure that Crozier has fully considered the situation, because for so long that was not the case. (Historically, in fact, they did set up a hospital camp while a smaller party moved south.)

I actually do think he says this with hope: the hope that they really will find game, that the ill do just need to rest, that he can save as many of them as possible.  He's also thinking of the practicalities and (though I may be biased) really does intend to return to the ill once they have something to actually provide them with. He doesn't say so that they can move on unencumbered, to better their own chances, he says to let them rest , to find something to offer them.  He knows the situation and the feeling in camp, and that the time has come to have the conversation. It's not even necessarily a conversation he wants to have or believes in, but it has to be had. Once it's been talked about, once Crozier has come out with not just a position but a direction (to leave supplies behind if necessary), Little is entirely on board. Shortly thereafter, when Le Vesconte suggests the exact same thing, he retorts that " Most of us are ill" (note the us - the identification with) and further responds with disgust and anger that "The Captain also ordered that we not leave any man behind. You expediently leave that out."  The Captain isn’t there; Jopson isn’t there: if Little really in any way wanted to leave anyone behind, this was his chance to order it and save himself.  The fact is that he is still arguing for and trying to lead with compassion as well as duty; the fact that he can't override the more selfish majority doesn't negate that.

I wish we could see his decision to go with Le Vesconte even though he so clearly believes that these lesser mutineers are in the wrong; I know why we don't. I like to think that it's because he believes he's doing the best thing for all, that he knows one semi-able bodied man staying behind is not going to help anyone, and that by going south with the group he may be to able to sway them, or find game for the ill. But again - he has been put in a position where there is no right choice, and where any authority he had has been too far eroded to matter.

Regardless: we go from his vehement protestation that they must a) rescue their captain and b) not leave behind the ill to die to this:

A man completely broken, weathered almost beyond recognition, with his flesh pierced by and draped with the chains of watch fobs. That's fobs plural: they're clearly different chains, from different watches, from different men.  But in still uniform.  Because he clung to the to his identity, to hope, to grounding structure of the Navy in which he trained and believed, until the very end.

We don't know what happens in between. Is it madness? Did the mutineers do this to him?   Is it penance? A memorization of the men whose watches those were?  A punishment on himself for what happened on his watch - despite the fact that really, he was powerless to stop it? And this is the only watch he can keep now - watch chains in his face, his eyes forced open to the horrors. Or did 1st Lt. Edward Little spend so long suppressing his anger, marrying that anger to hope, being responsible, keeping confidences, bearing all that alone, with authority that is both shoved on him and disregarded - did he finally snap? Are the chains not a decoration, not a punishment, but an attempt to literally bind himself up and tack himself down to this terrible world where he’s found himself?  

All we know for certain is his last word - “Close?” Close to what? To death? To salvation?  The only comfort either Edward Little or we, the audience, will get - is that at the very end, his captain was there to release him from the duty to which he clung for so long, so fiercely, with so much hope.

[nitpickrider]

Hmm. Hmm.

When we began. I had never read a New Universe book in my life, not the reboot, not any of the modern books where Marvel reincorporated the characters. Nothing. I knew it only by the broadest outline of its reputation. It was a poor idea, implemented haphazardly, mostly rejected, that fizzled sharply and decisively. I expected something that...wasn't bad, per se. But I expected something that would be self evident in its failure from the word go. That is not at all what I got.

There's this...tangle in my chest that I've been sitting with for an hour trying to write this. The idea I keep coming back to is a sentiment I've seen repeated again and again. In relation to fanfiction specifically "God this would have been so good if it was good."

For the first dozen issues I was electrified by this series. An ensemble cast in a setting that was refreshing for its simplicity, getting back to the core element of a superhero team: make them bounce off each other and see what sparks fly. I got attached, my heart and my mind clutched this new corner of comicdom close. JUST in time for the fanbelt to fly off.

After the end of that first arc the series...didn't dip, it wasn't one solid downward spike. It just started a hard wobble, an unsteady grip on itself that left fascinating ideas tangled up in the weeds of everything coming unglued. It made me disappointed, it made me anxious, at least once it made me honestly furious.

And yet these characters were so well etched. Their personal drama so richly defined. Their relationships so fascinating in their construction that I never wavered in my conviction that I had to see it to the bitter end.

This was a comic on the positive side of mid. It was full of bad choices, lead off on dead end sidetracks and spent its limited time at best, unwisely. The ending was sudden, leaving an even deeper pang in my heart of potential unfulfilled.

I am simply not ready to accept that this series has evaporated in my hands. So? So what? Well, I'm going to fucking write an ending is so what.

For those of you who feel the same way that I do, can feel the ideas in this comic itching just an inch beneath its skin. Follow me.

[moonlit-tulip]

Over time, I'm growing increasingly convinced that a lot of the craft underlying what people-into-storytelling call 'writing' isn't actually really about writing at all, and it would be useful for many people—me included—to swap over to some different term, like maybe 'storytelling'.

Because, in my experience, the goals pursued by me and by most of the people in my fiction-creation-focused social circles aren't particularly constrained to what's easy to render in prose. They're much more about conveying things to audiences, in ways which prose can certainly be helpful for but which other things can also be helpful for.

To bring up a topical example: Deltarune is a game which is very effective at its storytelling, able to deliver high-impact moments at pretty high density. And it's true that a decent chunk of that is down to being well-written; Toby Fox is, in fact, a pretty skilled wordsmith. But a lot of it is also down to other things: music, art and animation, timing, et cetera. The writing is just one component of many in the overall soup of Factors Behind Deltarune Being Good.

As such, it strikes me as worthwhile to view a lot of the skills traditionally touted as writing skills—plotting, characterization, pacing, et cetera—as, instead, more general storytelling skills. Skills which are more specifically writing skills still very much exist—various elements of how to write good prose, good dialogue, et cetera—but they're not the main mass of what most people are thinking of when they talk about writing skill. The main mass of 'writing' skills apply just as well to such things as text-free comics, voice-free animation, silent-protagonist-explores-abandoned-ruins games, and so forth, even if they're made without any writing-per-se involved in the process at all.

There are many tools which can help with telling a given story. Writing is one. But the writing isn't the story; it's just a medium through which the story can be conveyed. The difference is important.

[nostalgebraist]

thoughts on xDOTcom/CorralSummer/status/1823504569097175056 tumblrDOTcom/antinegationism/758845963819450368 ?

I mostly try to ignore AI art debates, and as a result I feel like I don't have enough context to make sense of that twitter exchange. That said...

It's about generative image models, and whether they "are compression." Which seems to mean something like "whether they contain compressed representations of their training images."

I can see two reasons why partisans in the AI art wars might care about this question:

If a training image is actually "written down" inside the model, in some compressed form that can be "read off" of the weights, it would then be easier to argue that a copyright on the image applies to the model weights themselves. Or to make similar claims about art theft, etc. that aren't about copyright per se.

If the model "merely" consists of a bunch of compressed images, together with some comparatively simple procedure for mixing/combining their elements together (so that most of the complexity is in the images, not the "combining procedure"), this would support the contention that the model is not "creative," is not "intelligent," is "merely copying art by humans," etc.

I think the stronger claim in #2 is clearly false, and this in turn has implications for #1.

(For simplicity I'll just use "#2", below, as a shorthand for "the stronger claim in #2," i.e. the thing about compressed images + simple combination procedure)

I can't present, or even summarize, the full range of the evidence against #2 in this brief post. There's simply too much of it. Virtually everything we know about neural networks militates against #2, in one way or another.

The whole of NN interpretability conflicts with #2. When we actually look at the internals of neural nets and what is being "represented" there, we rarely find anything that is specialized to a single training example, like a single image. We find things that are more generally applicable, across many different images: representations that mean "there's a curved line here" or "there's a floppy ear here" or "there's a dog's head here."

The linked post is about an image classifier (and a relatively primitive one), not an image generator, but we've also found similar things inside of generative models (e.g.).

I also find it difficult to understand how anyone could seriously believe #2 after actually using these models for any significant span of time, in any nontrivial way. The experience is just... not anything like what you would expect, if you thought they were "pasting together" elements from specific artworks in some simplistic, collage-like way. You can ask them for wild conjunctions of many different elements and styles, which have definitely never been represented before in any image, and the resulting synthesis will happen at a very high, humanlike level of abstraction.

And it is noteworthy that, even in the most damning cases where a model reliably generates images that are highly similar to some obviously copyrighted ones, it doesn't actually produce exact duplicates of those images. The linked article includes many pairs of the form (copyrighted image, MidJourney generation), but the generations are vastly different from the copyrighted images on the pixel level -- they just feel "basically the same" to us, because they have the same content in terms of humanlike abstract concepts, differing only in "inessential minor details."

If the model worked by memorizing a bunch of images and then recombining elements of them, it should be easy for it to very precisely reproduce just one of the memorized images, as a special case. Whereas it would presumably be difficult for such a system to produce something "essentially the same as" a single memorized image, but differing slightly in the inessential details -- what kind of "mixture," with some other image(s), would produce this effect?

Yet it's the latter that we see in practice -- as we'd expect from a generator that works in humanlike abstractions.

And this, in turn, helps us understand what's going in in the twitter dispute about "it's either compression or magic" vs. "how could you compress so much down to so few GB?"

Say you want to make a computer display some particular picture. Of, I dunno, a bird. (The important thing is that it's a specific picture, the kind that could be copyrighted.)

The simplest way to do this is just to have the computer store the image as a bitmap of pixels, without any compression.

In this case, it's unambiguous that the image itself is being represented in the computer, with all the attendant copyright (etc.) implications. It's right there. You can read it off, pixel by pixel.

But maybe this takes up too much computer memory. So you try using a simple form of compression, like JPEG compression.

JPEG compression is pretty simple. It doesn't "know" much about what images tend to look like in practice; effectively, it just "knows" that they tend to be sort of "smooth" at the small scale, so that one tiny region often has similar colors/intensities to neighboring tiny regions.

Just knowing this one simple fact gets you a significant reduction in file size, though. (The size of this reduction is a typical reference point for people's intuitions about what "compression" can, and can't, do.)

And here, again, it's relatively clear that the image is represented in the computer. You have to do some work to "unpack" it, but it's simple work, using an algorithm simple enough that a human can hold the whole thing in their mind at once. (There is probably at least one person in existence, I imagine, who can visualize what the encoded image looks like when they look at the raw bytes of a JPEG file, like those guys in The Matrix watching the green text fall across their terminal screens.)

But now, what if you had a system that had a whole elaborate library of general visual concepts, and could ably draw these concepts if asked, and could draw them in any combination?

You no longer need to lay out anything like a bitmap, a "copy" of the image arranged in space, tile by tile, color/intensity unit by color/intensity unit.

It's a bird? Great, the system knows what birds look like. This particular bird is an oriole? The system knows orioles. It's in profile? The system knows the general concept of "human or animal seen in profile," and how to apply it to an oriole.

Your encoding of the image, thus far, is a noting-down of these concepts. It takes very little space, just a few bits of information: "Oriole? YES. In profile? YES."

The picture is a close-up photograph? One more bit. Under bright, more-white-than-yellow light? One more bit. There's shallow depth of field, and the background is mostly a bright green blur, some indistinct mass of vegetation? Zero bits: the system's already guessed all that, from what images of this sort tend to be like. (You'd have to spend bits to get anything except the green blur.)

Eventually, we come to the less essential details -- all the things that make your image really this one specific image, and not any of the other close-up shots of orioles that exist in the world. The exact way the head is tilted. The way the branch, that it sits on, is slightly bent at its tip.

This is where most of the bits are spent. You have to spend bits to get all of these details right, and the more "arbitrary" the details are -- the less easy they are to guess, on the basis of everything else -- the more bits you have to spend on them.

But, because your first and most abstract bits bought you so much, you can express your image quite precisely, and still use far less room than JPEG compression would use, or any other algorithm that comes to mind when people say the word "compression."

It is easy to "compress" many specific images inside a system that understands general visual concepts, because most of the content of an image is generic, not unique to that image alone.

The ability to convey all of the non-unique content very briefly is precisely what provides us enough room to write down all the unique content, alongside it.

This is basically the way in which specific images are "represented" inside Stable Diffusion and MidJourney and the like, insofar as they are. Which they are, not as a general rule, but occasionally, in the case of certain specific images -- due to their ubiquity in the real world and hence in the training data, or due to some deliberate over-sampling of them in that data.

(In the case of MidJourney and the copyrighted images, I suspect the model was [over-?]heavily trained on those specific images -- perhaps because they were thought to exemplify the "epic," cinematic MidJourney house style -- and it has thus stored more of their less-essential details than it has with most training images. Typical regurgitations from image generators are less precise than those examples, more "abstract" in their resemblance to the originals -- just the easy, early bits, with fewer of the expensive less-essential details.)

But now -- is your image of the oriole "represented" in computer memory, in this last case? Is the system "compressing" it, "storing" it in a way that can be "read off"?

In some sense, yes. In some sense, no.

This is a philosophical question, really, about what makes your image itself, and not any of the other images of orioles in profile against blurred green backgrounds.

Remember that even MidJourney can't reproduce those copyrighted images exactly. It just makes images that are "basically the same."

Whatever is "stored" there is not, actually, a copy of each copyrighted image. It's something else, something that isn't the original, but which we deem too close to the original for our comfort. Something of which we say: "it's different, yes, but only in the inessential details."

But what, exactly, counts as an "inessential detail"? How specific is too specific? How precise is too precise?

If the oriole is positioned just a bit differently on the branch... if there is a splash of pink amid the green blur, a flower, in the original but not the copy, or vice versa...

When does it stop being a copy of your image, and start being merely an image that shares a lot in common with yours? It is not obvious where to draw the line. "Details" seem to span a whole continuous range of general-to-specific, with no obvious cutoff point.

And if we could, somehow, strip out all memory of all the "sufficiently specific details" from one of these models -- which might be an interesting research direction! -- so that what remains is only the model's capacity to depict "abstract concepts" in conjunction?

If we could? It's not clear how far that would get us, actually.

If you can draw a man with all of Super Mario's abstract attributes, then you can draw Super Mario. (And if you cannot, then you are missing some important concept or concepts about people and pictures, and this will hinder you in your attempts to draw other, non-copyrighted entities.)

If you can draw an oriole, in profile, and a branch, and a green blur, then you can draw an oriole in profile on a branch against a green blur. And all the finer details? If one wants them, the right prompt should produce them.

There is no way to stop a sufficiently capable artist from imitating what you have done, if it can imitate all of the elements of which your creation is made, in any imaginable combination.

[mask131]

It is always very funny to see at Tumblr-folks handling folklore analysis because it SHOWS a lot sometimes when they just take their things out of pop culture, fantasy media and Tumblr posts.

Not that it is a bad way to think or to start. Rather all these things make you appreciate the legends and myths from a modern and current point of view. When you speak of certain creatures as they appear today, you get to some conclusions... But when you present them as what the creature was always about, you prove you are a bit short-sighted or forgot to look at the actual tales.

For example I stumbled upon one post (which I won't link because otherwise I don't mind it and it clearly isn't a misinformation stuff, outside of just some biased reading) that defends the idea that the dragon in Europe always, always represented "the fear of a bad king" or was a metaphor for "dangerous political figures".

... No?

I mean, yes, in modern days, in pop culture, in its handling in modern fantasy, the dragon IS a figure of bad king, sort of, can be read as such and has been read as such (see Discworld). But... that's a modern thing that doesn't fit the actual dragons of legends. People forget that the current "dragon legend" is VERY recent.

For example the post I talk about mentions how dragons are always slayed by knights - and this somehow proves that a king can only be taken down by nobility feuding, or something. It also talks of how dragons breathes fire, presenting it as a core part of its element - the same way as it hoarding gold being somehow part of the core myth from day one (and not just a specific branch of the actual mythical theme, which is "dragons are guardians of treasure", but treasure isnt always gold).

Except... If you just take French folklore, this doesn't work. The post faults in this because among the tales is lists as part of the dragon myth - Beowulf, The Faerie Queene, the legend of Saint George, the Hobbit, Dungeons and Dragons - it lists the Tarasque legend, one of the most famous French dragon tales.

French dragons do not breathe fire, in fact they very RARELY breathe fire. All folklorists and legend experts, but also just anybody who has just looked a bit at French dragon folklore, will tell you they are water-entities who rarely have anything to do with fire per se. And they are not slain by knights - it is usually saints. "Yeah but saints are knights" will say those that are used to saint Georges. Except the saints slaying French dragons are usually either bishops or miraculous women. The Tarasque was defeated by a woman.

Not only that but French dragons weren't even slain at first. Originally they were tamed by the saints, turned into harmless pets. The whole "Let's kill the dragon" imagery came later, and made all these legends of peaceful domination take a bloody turn. And that's because the legend of the "dragon-slaying" in French folklore came a bit later, and no, French dragons were never meant to represent a king. They were meant to represent natural dangers, especially floods or drowning waters. They were deadly rivers, dangerous bogs, that sort of things - in the direct line of the Hydra from Greek mythology, whom people tend to forget is meant to embody poisonous waters, toxic bogs, nefarious marshes, stuff of the sort. Most people agree that originally the French dragon was tamed by saints (often city-building or bridge-building saints) as a metaphor for human communities taming the dangerous floods and wild rivers and hostile swamps while building their cities, their roads, their bridges, etc... Only later did the imagery of the dragon being murdered appeared, due to all sorts of changes and influences in the Church politics and popular imagery.

But to try to claim that the dragon always depicted the motif of the "bad king" is... Quite incorrect. Fafnir isn't a malevolent king. He is a greedy, cursed, malevolent dwarf or dvergr, a supernatural entity twisted by pure supernatural greed. He is an Otherworld threat, not very much human like to begin with - down to his body parts confering magical powers onto people. The "dragons" of Greek mythology are not "evil kings", they are rather leftovers of the primordial chaos. Either they are children of primordial deities from the chaotic times (Ladon) either they are agents of Olympian deities who still embody the part of chaos, disturbance and discord remaining in an ordered, civilized universe (the sea monsters of Poseidon, the snakes of Hera, the dragons of Ares), and they are a mixed up of symbolism - some are devouring sea, others are burning fire, others are deadly poison...

People who know their myths around the world won't be surprised and will just roll their eyes and say "Duh, of course" but it actually still needs to be said because a lot of people don't know it... Originally the dragon is a manifestation of natural disasters, of the elements gold wild, of the destructive weather, of the sea or the land being hostile to humanity itself. Originally the dragon is the flood, the storm, the primordial chaos. The "bad king" dragon is much more recent than you think.

It is just like the "peaceful, beautiful, pure virgin unicorn". Yes there's old if not ancient elements to prove it, and yes it is part of the myth... But unicorns still started out as bloody ugly and freakingly terrifying monsters hellbent on violence and bloodshed. They still had rainbow colored horn, but it was to eviscerate elephants.

The dwarves were dark elves, the "genie" is born out of the "djinn". The three little pigs were pixies, sirens were not mermaids, people get ghouls and zombies VERY wrong, werewolves warlocks and vampires were once one and the same...

Yes, monsters and beasts and entities of legends manifest anxieties, desires, fantasies and allegories of the human world, and quite ancient and vast ones. But it doesn't mean these entities can't change their meaning - while they might represent something now, it doesn't mean they meant something else before.

[lost-inanotherlife]

some thoughts about addictions in LOST

there will be spoilers and, obvi, I'll talk about addiction as a narrative theme/motif in this post, so be warned if this is triggering to you.

In this post I've said that, on rewatch, I didn't particularly like Charlie and I've also added that, perhaps, one of the reasons for this change of heart (I used to love Charlie back in 2004) is the show (not particularly brilliant, imho) handling of his addiction/recovery storyline. This post, though, won't be specifically about Charlie but it will be about the way the show portrayed addictions mainly as signifiers of 1. the possibility of being "saved" and 2. clinical depression.

To be honest with you, I don't agree with the people that say that LOST is a character-driven show. But I don't agree with the people who say it's plot-driven either. To me in LOST characters and plot go hand in hand. So how can i describe LOST? Well, I would say that LOST is theme-driven: both plot and characters must adhere to the show's main themes. And it makes sense, right? I mean, never believe TV writers when they say they have everything planned out in advance, you know that it's a lie. 99% of the time they just have a half-baked story and, perhaps, some more or less well thought-out characters. The rest is "just" some very general and very big Themes and they rely on those to write their story like water in a desert.

One of LOST's big themes is, of course, destiny. Like all the tales about destiny the more the characters struggle against it, the more they end up enacting it. In LOST the struggle takes the shape of a rejection of the past: in one way or another all the characters are compelled by their past or by one event that happened in their past/childhood that has molded the direction of their lives and the way in which they experience the world. In other words, as you all well know, these characters can't let go, they can't move on.

One of the ways in which this compulsion is portrayed is substance addiction. Charlie and Jack are the two main characters who struggle against it but they do it very diffrently. Or, better, the writers portray their respective addictions very differently.

In Charlie's case, his heroin addiction is a very prominent feature of this storyline: you take it away from him, his story loses most of its pathos and meaning. Charlie's addiction and his recovery from it are an integral part of his character that you can't substitute with anything else.

On the other hand, Jack's addictions are treated as a motif to basically telegraph the audience that The Character Is Not Doing Well. If you take away Jack's alcohol abuse, for instance, from his story, you won't end up changing it that much. Like, with or without his alcohol abuse, Jack's still pretty much a depressed man with a difficult relationship with his father and a general lack of belief in the value of his life per se.

However, in both cases, the ways in which these addictions are written are never realistic, they only serve a narrative purpose, aka to signify something else: in Charlie's case his addiction stands for his possibility (or lack thereof) to be "saved" while in Jack's case his addictions signal his clinical depression.

When LOST writers write Jack sitting in a sea of empty bottles, popping pills like there's no tomorrow, they want to show without telling that "Jack Is Not Doing Fine!". Theirs is a narrative device to say something without saying it, it's not active interest in exploring what it really means to have substance abuse-related problems. In other words, it's NOT a way of telling the audience "Look, there's a quite big and deep element of substance abuse in this character's story that actually plays a big role in the decisions the character makes because hey! he's not okay, so we'd like to portray this in a realistic way and explore it in depth". They dont' say that because they aren't interested in that. And they're not interested in that because LOST is not EXCLUSIVELY a character-driven show. Characters and plot must go hand in hand and the plot is fast-paced, chop! chop! let's go! we don't have time to go THAT deep into character analysis.

Case in point, when Jack's on the island his addictions seem to disappear. He's not only Suddenly Fine but even characters who are close to him and know about his issues conveniently seem to forget about them. In S5 Kate and Jack go back to the 70S to live in Dharmaville and they literally PRETEND that nothing has happened in the previous three years between them, like nothing at all. Jack's addictions are not treated as something that the show really wants us to pay attention to because, if we do, we are bound to realize that, even if, when he's on the island, Jack doesn't experience any withdrawal symptoms, he's still NOT in a healthy place, mentally speaking. And not like, "I'm sad because I've ruined my chance with Kate", but more like "My mind is a minefield, I can only think about one thing and I need it to feel better, to make myself feel better again or I'll kms". This is what "We have to go back" really means: symbolically, it's Jack's compulsion wrt his past trauma, in much realer terms, it's Jack's being an addict and thinking that the island is his last dose, his ultimate chance at HappinessTM.

Something very similar happens to Charlie as well and I think it's no coincidence that both characters end the way they do and both deaths have scarred an entire generation of people watching TV in their teens, lol.

Charlie's perhaps the first character that introduces the theme of destiny when he writes "fate" on those thingies he has on his fingers (I'm aware that "destiny" and "fate" are not necessarily the same concept but let's use them as interchangeable terms bc, come on, we only have 5 fingers per hand and the word "destiny" doesn't fit, lol, okay?). He's also the only character whose story is decidedly connected to drug abuse. And, I think, this wasn't necessarily a good move on the part of the writers team because I personally think that you can't write a character who's struggling with addiction and then write said addiction solely as a way to talk about something else. You gotta factor in what it really means to be an addict and what it means to be an addict on a fucking island with tons of free heroin on it. The reason why I think that the writers didn't really think it through is because nobody on the island shows an ounce of compassion, or just plain sympathy towards Charlie. Like, Charlie's addiction is written like The Bad Thing and everybody around him treats him like The Bad Man Who Snorts Heroin and it's just so... moralistic!!!

Not only that, S2 is a season where almost every character starts having some sort of hallucinations. Mental health is a whole sub-theme in S2, the season where we have episodes like "Dave" where Hugo/Hurley's past history in a mental health facility is revelead. So people are, beliavably I'd say, starting to get a bit weird on the island and they all begin to See Stuff and the people around them seem to understand this, they're sympathetic and they all go like "you have to rest" or something. Not with Charlie. Charlie has visions and nightmares because he's a Drug Addict. No other explanation. Not even one person who was like: "PERHAPS if it's hard for us who don't have to struggle against a fucking heroin addiction, maybe, MAYBE, it's even HARDER for Charlie so, not saying we have to justify the shit he does, but at least let's all try to understand him". Nope. Charlie's bad and does bad thing because, CLEARLY, he was using drugs and he was using because he's bad person and an addict. Like, no, don't write stuff like this, please.

If you add the fact that his recovery story is LITERALLY compared to being baptized, aka "be saved from the Original Sin", I'm sorry but I can't shake the feeling that there's some veiled, surely unconscious, Christian propaganda at play here.

Aside from that, Charlie's whole "Heroin Arc" ends in S2. Like, it's done, it's over, he throws all the heroin into the sea, Charlie Pace Is Saved. That's good, right? Weeeeeeell. To me no, it's not good because then S3 starts and we have the "Charlie Is Supposed to Die" arc and I asky myself why? Like, I can feel that the writers didn't know what else to do with Charlie besides Charlie having drug problems. So when the drug problems are over, they "redeem" him with a storyline of self-sacrifice that feels a bit forced, to me at least. Not only that, it also reduces Charlie to his former drug abuse storyline and this reinforces the feeling that Charlie is an addict, can only be an addict and, once he's not an addict anymore, he must die because he can ONLY be an addict since the writers hadn't figured out anything else for him. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think the writers understood and/or cared about the consequences of the things they had written and the other possible takeaways people might have inferred from the way they wrote addiction stories.

I'll say one good thing the writers did and it was what I consider the actual Big Reveal of S3 finale. Des' flashes weren't about Charlie dying, they were about him not allowing Charlie to die because Charlie was the one who was SUPPOSED (not to die) but to go the The Looking Glass station and stop the jamming signal because he's the only rock musician on the island (which means that, surely, he'd know "Good Vibrations"). So, to me, Charlie was not "supposed to die", he was "supposed to be there" which is a whole other thing. And Charlie can "be there" because he accepts that he will die. This was a very interesting thing but, I mean, S3 is a fucking mess, we all know that, so for one good thing there are at least three more that aren't so good (let's all remember that S3 is the "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Further Instructions" season, and many more laughable episodes written just because they had to write the show and the network wouldn't "free" the writers from LOST, lol).

I'm reaching rambling territory so I'll stop now but, basically, I personally don't like the way LOST handles addictions. I understand that this is a story, a narrative where things means something else as well, I understand that both Jack and Charlie's addictions are strongly connected to the issues they have with their respective family members and, therefore, the reason why they were on that plane in the first place. So I understand that addictions mean many different things in LOST. And, ngl, it'd be fine by me if both characters didn't end up self-sacrificing themselves thinking that THAT was their redemption. But they do, both Charlie and Jack die in order to save other people and this is great and noble but I simply can't forget that these were two characters struggling with addictions who ended badly. The nobility of their acts doesn't make them less sad and, frankly, wrong.

[nabesthetics]

On magic & movement

Thinking about the way magic works in the Arcana and how, while many people seem to move while casting more aggressive/powerful spells, it doesn't seem to be necessary per se. Some spells do have verbal/material components, but gestures seem to be more of a helping action. It's probably easier to aim or place a spell in a specific way if you move your hand into the same direction, which matters a lot when you, say, need to act fast. And it could aid the whole "feeling/imagination" part of the canon Arcana spellcasting, the MC can't exactly think happy warm thoughts every time they cast a fire missile.

It could also just be a necessary action for a lot of people, needing to do something with their body to call upon magic.

But while movement makes it easier, it also gives away your intentions. So there are the relatively few powerful, experienced magicians who can, in fact, use magic without moving at all, or by just looking in the right direction. We get a glimpse of that with Valdemar of all people (?), when they take away Lucio's voice without any (mentioned) gestures. And it is suitably eerie, the concept of spellcasting being separate from the mage's apparent actions.

(OC-specific thoughts below)

Amnesiac Alastor likely needs some sort of movement in most situations, he's generally rather expressive with his body language, and that translates into magic as well. Though that preference will stay there, he might eventually get a grasp on some motionless casting, because for dragons it is more natural on account of them not being bipedal. While for humans, hands are often sort of a magic control focus, for dragons it's mainly their heads. Most powerful spells still require movement from them (e.g. elemental breath), but it is not uncommon for dragon mages to cast smaller spells while just looking in the direction of the target.

This very much holds up for non-amnesiac Alastor. It does require concentration often too difficult to achieve in a tense situation, but it can be an intimidation tactic – or a survival one if an opponent is trained in fighting mages specifically.

Marty can be more subtle about his spells, and can probably cast some illusions without moving. But that mostly holds up in a relaxed environment and illusion spells (or if he's seething enough to concentrate on an anger-fueled spell, but that's a whole other thing hehe). Very much also in the "needs movement when casting in a survival situation" though. If he feels like it, he likes to actually embellish his spells because he enjoys the effect and drama of it.

Shean is the best out of the three in this. His training to keep his emotions and magic under control naturally gave him the ability to concentrate on it even with adrenaline pumping through his system. Specifically in a combat situation, he only needs subtle motions for some spells, and aligns movement of his weapons with others. Though the more he calls upon powerful magic, the more difficult it becomes to control, so he has to use it sparingly.

[itsmeyoucant]

i aprreciate that my au is different than others but also it can be very surprising to look at other peoples versions and see the characters be pretty different from my own interpretations. not that its a bad thing per se its just interesting that some of aspects i often see removed are my favorite ones to play with and explore

specifically ive noticed that the Modern Vincent tends to not be evil or a serial killer which i think is pretty amusing considering thats probably what i have the most fun with in my version. im not 100% sure why, whether it be that people want to redeem him or do it for shipping purposes or find him being a child serial killer either cringe or irredeemable, but the point still stands. i guess for me its such a vital part of his character and it was literally the foundation that he was built on so its hard to imagine him without the whole murder aspect. not that those interpretations are bad theyre just a lot different than how he exists in my brain since my version leans very heavy on the serial killer aspect of his identity

i also think its interesting that scott is usually a full blown human these days and people dont even give him the telephone helmet anymore. im pretty sure the helmet idea came from another artist back in the day that i never really followed so i always just went off of the og and said yeah thats straight up his head and i still live by that now

im sure a lot of the changes people make have to do in part with them trying to distance the characters from the original and make them their own, and i really do think thats awesome, i just think its funny that certain crucial elements of the original have somewhat tapered out of their many modern iterations. then again i guess i do thrive in the chaos of the original so a guy with a phone for a head is something im happy to build my world around

[zeroducks-2]

Honestly I love the fanon families in DC but I very much acknowledge that the vast majority of it is not canon consistent. I almost feel like they’re two different universes in the way that Earth Two is different from Earth one. To me the media that supports the family feel good stuff like Wayne family Adventures is an entirely different continuity like Else world stories. They’re the same characters just written and played with in a much different way.

Wayne Family Adventure is indeed an elseworld, like the Lego DC movies or the Arkham videogames or the White Knight saga.

"canon" when it comes to DC is not a single entity because DC means many many things. Jason having been tortured by Joker and then allying with Scarecrow is canon for the Arkhamverse, but surely it isn't for the comicverse. Eobard pretending to be a scientist named Harrison Wells is canon for the CW Flash TV show, but not for the comicverse. Selina Kyle being Carmine Falcone's daughter is canon for the Batman 2022 movie, but not for the comicverse. And same goes for whatever happens in Wayne Family Adventures - the stuff in there is canon for its own context, not for the main comics canon continuity.

Now when it comes to "fanon" that's a different thing. I've seen people act like DC fanon is some sort of monolith with specific rules but it very much is not, fanon means various takes that are so widespread that people start to act as if they were canon, even if they don't come from the source material and they were born directly from the fandom. An example is Tim Drake being a coffee addict or Stephanie Brown loving pancakes. This is stuff which is either very loosely based off of canon or with no bearings with canon whatsoever, but a good chunk of the fandom acts like they were canon facts. Some folks are aware that they're not, some aren't, most don't care.

Now, the concept of Bruce Wayne being a Tired Sitcom Dad™ with all his sidekicks living in Wayne Manor like some sort of big family is a fanon concept. A few years ago people started acting like this was canon, and new people coming in would see it and also assume it was canon (Wayne Family Adventure both comes from fanon concepts and served to fuel them, because at some point people started using WFA panels as "proof" that all that actually happened). There has been and still is a pushback of people saying no, this is non-canon, stop acting like this stuff happened in the main comics continuity, but they pretty much get drowned by the mass of people who instead scream that "good dad Bruce is the only real Bruce" and that every instance of abuse or toxic behavior you show them is out of character and should be disregarded. (It is worth noting that many of these folks have actually never read DC comics, and if you suggest they do they will call you ableist and a gatekeeper when you're lucky - when you're unlucky they'll tell you to go kill yourself)

I want to add as a footnote that there are many cases (probably most cases actually) in which fanon stuff is awesome, and makes fandom experiences more enjoyable. The whole multiverse dynamic of the Undertale fandom is a fanonical masterpiece just to name one. There is a specific issue with fanon in the DC fandom in particular, but it's absolutely not the case for all fandoms - the existence of fanon dynamics is not a bad thing per se and it's a natural consequence of big fandoms existing and evolving over time. The problem with the DC fandom is that the fanon material doesn't work WITH and ALONGSIDE the canonical elements of the story. It is rather in extreme direct contradiction with the established source material, and people flat out refuse to accept that their "sunshine and rainbows" version of things isn't the real deal.

It's worth mentioning that when it comes to the Flash family we have a bit of a different situation. The abuse there is more subtle, it's less "Bruce punched Dick in the face" and more "these people are treating Barry's depression like an inconvenience". It's less "Bruce slit Jason's throat to save the life of Jason's murderer" and more "the moment Barry isn't the perfect picture of strength and happiness his family will act like he's doing it on purpose to spite them". It's way easier to dismiss because lots of people are unable to even pick up on it, and especially when it comes to Wally and Iris, 90% of the fandom does not allow them to be complex characters with dark impulses who are very capable of hurting the people they love and who love them. Wally because he's supposed to be a shining perfect hero, and Iris... well, Iris is a woman. Unfortunately most people refuse to even begin taking into consideration the idea that a woman can be a gray character, therefore women in fandom spaces are treated like either irredeemably unlikable bitches, or perfect angels who could never do anything wrong. Iris falls into the second category for nearly every single person in the Flash Fandom I've seen so far.

But anyway, I ranted enough. As I mentioned in the comments of my previous ask, I too have written fluffy "batfamily" dynamics or made Wally act sweet and protective towards Barry, but I am able to make a difference between what I like, what I'm using for my fanfiction and what actually is canon.

[sanchezsimp]

Okay, I'm just gonna be reeealll straight and honest with y'all here-

Billford.

Warning: I'm not going to tag this post, because there aren't any actual spoilers in it, but these were my thoughts after reading it. Read if ya want.

I, personally, never shipped it. I also never had a problem with others shipping it. I respected it and still do. Perhaps more now. It was sort of a "whatever, do what you want, like what you like, don't care" ship for me. BUT!

NEVER, in a million years, did I think the Book of Bill would get me into it rather than the goddamn fandom.

Okay, let me be more specific here...

I didn't see them as properly being in a relationship. It's not my OTP or anything like that, and it sure as hell wasn't healthy or sweet.

Bill was abusive, and Ford was a victim.

But I do believe that, despite using him, Bill actually felt connected with Ford, and they had some good times... And he was real upset when the only person he felt that connection with left him.

That doesn't make it any less toxic or wrong.

I wouldn't say I ship it now, per se, but I definitely see it, because it feels canon.

To me, it was a one-sided, maybe-romantic thing with Bill, and he was hurt. This does not excuse the fucked up shit he did.

Maybe it wasn't truly romantic, but there was some element in there, if you ask me.

To anyone who disagrees and thinks it definitely was or definitely wasn't romantic-- Alright! You're entitled to your own opinion.

But, y'all, I did not expect the Book of Bill to be about Bill and Ford's toxic yaoi, and hell, I'm not opposed.

It was great, I cannot explain more how much I fucking loved reading it.

Tumblr, please don't hate me-