#not for a specific element per se

[fuckableelementspoll]

Someone submitted this as Iron and manganese propaganda! (they asked me to repost so they could remain anonymous)

This mineral will give you a good night, they'll make sure you're cummingtonite ;)

[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?

Imago

[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.

[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. 

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

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 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).

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.

[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.

[cosmicconversations]

Pick-A-Card Tarot Reading: What Are Their Current Intentions Toward You? 💗

It’s Pick A Card Friday here on my blog and today we are taking it back to love readings. We are going to take a look at what the person on your mind’s current intentions are. (Or the person who happens to come through) And even with me saying that, it is not necessarily what they are going to do. It is what they are thinking about doing as far as this connection. Whether or not they do it is up to them. In the extended, we will then look at what this connection is teaching them. It will cover how personal or spiritual growth they are or will be experiencing because of the connection.

So, choose the image below that resonates most with you and I will see you in your pile’s reading!

Only take what resonates. Trust your intuition. Remember that you still have the free will to choose whoever you do or don’t want to be with, regardless of what kind of soul connection you have . This reading is timeless but I am also reading current energy. It is best to not worry about or obsess over the outcome of any connection. Your person also has free will and what is meant to be will be.

Pile 1

Pile 2

Pile 3

italicized = back of the deck

Pile 1

Six of Cups (reversed) /// Two of Pentacles /// Knight of Wands /// The Wheel of Fortune (reversed)

The Lovers

Pile 1, this person knows the significance of this connection. The first sense I got was that they may be getting Tarot readings on you? Maybe they are reading my blog right now! But, seriously, they understand how major this connection is and the more spiritual element. I won’t say just what it could be, in terms of labels like twin flames or soulmates. That’s up to you to decide, as far as what resonates for you. But, your person’s current intention is to further understand this connection and its impact in their life.

They are VERY stuck on old memories of you. I am getting old pictures, maybe on social media, texts or direct messages or even emails from the past. If it’s not that, they are just reminiscing a lot. Well, it’s not just reminiscing at this point. It is straight-up being overly fixated on the past and the way things were. There is something about that they are romanticizing. This might not even be someone you were actually committed to but they are looking at times in your past with rose-colored glasses. I also think there is a particular picture of you they keep on their phone or something and look at all the time. It is all kind of a distraction from their present life. Well, not kind of. It is a huge distraction.

They feel kind of weighed down by the current responsibilities of their life. In some way, I think they felt forced to choose between what was more “practical” and you and they chose the more pragmatic option. Take that how it resonates. Maybe in regards to a partner? They definitely could have chosen someone else over you that they saw fitting into their life more easily. In spite of work sometimes being a distraction, they also often try to distract themselves with work. They are very back and forth, which is why I can’t really settle on a specific intention on their end. Really all over the place. They could definitely have chart placements in Gemini. I think they may still be stuck in the kind of flaky or inconsistent or hot and cold energy that messed things up with you.

They could be feeling a little defeatist right now. It is like the choice they made (again, possibly in a person) screwed them over. They made their bed. I am hearing that Love Island quote from Serena: “You made your bed. Now hump in it.” (If you know, you know) Yeah, I honestly don’t feel like they have any intentions right now other than dwelling on the past intentions that got them to this point. Some of you were definitely played around on by your person. I don’t get the vibe of cheating, per se, more so them just being a fuckboy/girl and choosing something impulsively. It definitely involved sex, in some way, with someone who they were casual with.

I think that this person really wants to sleep with you, either again or for the first time. But, they aren’t serious about getting committed. They think they are serious but they’re really not. Their feelings for you are more so passion. This combo of The Lovers and the Knight of Wands indicates an explosive sexual chemistry but it might be confused for something deeper when it actually isn’t. And if you are feeling open to possibly hooking up with this person, please be careful. I don’t think they will be that careful with your heart. They’re not that mature. I think they are trying to mature and get their act together but it’s feels kind of surface level. I also think they want to benefit from your presence and energy in their life. You feel like their “good luck charm” and if you guys aren’t in communication, then it seems like a lot in their life is going wrong. If they are researching the spiritual element of this connection, maybe they believe that coming into “union” with you in that way will turn their life around. It doesn’t work that way, honey! So, yeah, they have much more work to do if they want this to work. Also, either you or them could have placements in Taurus, Leo, Scorpio or Aquarius.

Extended Reading for Pile 1 (what is this connection teaching them?)

/////////

Pile 2

Ace of Wands (reversed) /// King of Wands /// Ace of Cups (reversed) /// Ten of Swords (reversed)

Seven of Swords

Pile 2, to be honest, your person is not emotionally available at the moment. Ace of Cups in reverse and the Seven of Swords definitely indicate someone whose heart isn’t open and is very stuck in their head. You may be saying, “When have they ever been emotionally available?” Well, that is part of the problem. They are just furthering old patterns of theirs without much growth. Yet, they seem to be stuck on this connection. It has probably come to an end in some way and it has actually been devastating to them, even if you seemingly wouldn’t know it. But, they aren’t letting themselves really feel that. At the same time, they are believing that something can be done about this. Their current intention is to strategize and come up with a plan to get this relationship back on track. Yet, they don’t realize that they don’t need to “strategize”. They just need to get emotionally real with themselves and with you. But, that is going to take more time, unfortunately. This could either be a romantic or platonic situation. It will be romantic for many of you but not all of you. Regardless, this is someone who was never able to truly love you the way you deserved. And they know that and that is part of why they want to make it right. But, they just don’t know how to. It has led to a sort of paralysis where they are not doing anything. They might be really passive about this, sometimes, feeling like there’s not much they actually can do. I feel like there was some sort of “final straw” a lot of you reached with this person and they are wishing they could just undo whatever they did to make you throw in the towel.

If this is a romantic situation, an interesting message I am getting is that this person may currently intend on holding off on sex with anyone else. It’s like they can’t be with anyone else because all they can think about is you. This person may have even recently tried to sleep with someone they were casually dating or something and it didn’t end well. I do feel like they are sinking further and further into this sense of despair over this. Yet, they’re still trying to be… rational? They really need to let go of that. If this person would just let themselves cry, then they would be able to process all of this better. If they are male, they definitely have a toxic masculinity they need to work on. They are aware of this but it is slow progress.

They could have their Sun, Moon or Rising in Fire (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius). I see them in this King of Wands. They do have many positive traits and I think you recognize this, even if you don’t want anything to do with them. Recently, they haven’t felt like themselves. They don’t laugh or have fun as much as they used to and I think this relationship ending is a big part of that. I feel like they intend to get back to their old selves and feel like getting with you will help them do that. Yet, they know that elements of their old self can no longer remain. Interestingly, there may be a father or father figure in their life who acts as a King of Wands influence on them. They may ask this figure for advice or seek to emulate them in order to be a better version of themselves. I also get the sense that they are afraid of really letting their father figure down in some way, as they really look at this person as highly respectable.

The King of Wands is also highly connected to the Divine. They may even see some of this energy in you. So, I also feel like they currently intend to work on their spiritual life, if they even have one. In most cases, it seems like they have little to no spiritual awareness. But, they are developing it and likely using your example as inspiration. They know you are very spiritual and are looking into certain things you have talked about before. For a lot of you, I feel like this involves astrology, which makes sense as astrology is the most “logical” of the spiritual studies. So, maybe they have recently gotten into that and they may even want to impress you with that. I think they are seeking something to keep them afloat and to nourish their spirit. They may not be able to articulate it but they are seriously struggling right now, mentally and emotionally, and spirituality can serve as a real lifeline. So, as of now, their intentions are a lot less about you and more about the things they are doing in order to rectify the loss of you.

Extended Reading for Pile 2 (what is this connection teaching them?)

/////////

Pile 3

Ten of Pentacles (reversed) /// Two of Wands /// Justice (reversed) /// Page of Pentacles (reversed)

Queen of Cups

Pile 3, I am feeling like this is about a romantic connection. Those are the vibes I am getting. They could have their Sun, Moon or Rising in the sign of Libra. I think they have this major plan right now to leave their old life behind to come toward you. And for a lot of you? This feels like a divorce they are going through with. Either a divorce or the split of a really long-term relationship. I would say this could have been a “third party” situation but I am not really getting that. I don’t even think you would see it that way because, honestly, I don’t think most of you are that pressed about this relationship.

Don’t get me wrong. You might have wanted to be with this person in the past. But, I also think you moved on from it or just decided it wasn’t worth it, maybe because they were involved with someone else. But, again, I am not getting love triangle vibes. I think this is just someone where the “potential” was there and you both felt it. But, it never came to fruition and it’s probably because they were too comfortable with someone else. I think something about this situation with that other person has fallen apart, though. I don’t think it was ever that solid of a foundation to begin with and the cracks grew and grew over time.

This person is getting more in touch with their emotions and their intuition in order to navigate their current situation. I feel like they have always felt the call to move beyond the relationship they were in, which was stifling to them in a major way. But, they didn’t because they wanted to adhere to traditions and expectations. In the process, they may have hurt you or disregarded you somehow. I think they see you as this Queen of Cups figure. So, you may have significant placements in Cancer, Scorpio or Pisces. I don’t think they treated you fairly or showed you the kindness that you were giving them. They didn’t have enough empathy or compassion for you, for some reason. You will know how that resonates. For some of you, they may have hid their relationship from you and when you discovered it, they were dismissive or inconsiderate of your feelings.

I do feel like they still expect kindness from you and, honestly, it still isn’t quite fair. It seems like they may come in, expecting everything to be okay now. Okay, I think some of you may have given them an ultimatum to choose either you or the other person. They seem to have chosen the other. I also feel like a lot of time could have passed since this, like a few years. Do they really expect for you to still be hanging on? For others of you, maybe they never really told you how they felt. Regardless, they did something kind of shady or sketchy to you in order to make room for this other relationship in their life. And now that they weren’t able to maintain that existence with that person, they feel like you are going to just welcome them back in. I get kind of a vibe of overconfidence in that way. You can do what you want but make sure that you are doing what is truly fair to you because this person might not be. They also may not have even officially or fully left this person yet. Be sure that you are getting the whole story from them!

Although they may have a certain affection or love for you, the energy here is coming across as kind of… disingenuous. It’s like, now they want to show up when their “perfect plan” with someone else fell apart. There is quite an overlap between all of the piles today. A lot of audacity in all three! You should know that you don’t need to be someone’s second choice or “back-up plan”. They could just be coming in because they feel like the grass will be greener with you. Also, if and when they come in, be sure to hold them accountable for whatever happens. They may be so charming or good with words that they are able to evade taking real ownership of their actions. If that was a problem in the past, things won’t change until that is addressed. Don’t make excuses for them. And while your empathy and kindness are wonderful qualities, don’t forget to maintain your boundaries.

Extended Reading for Pile 3 (what is this connection teaching them?)

[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-

[the-bar-sinister]

I saw a post expressing some frustration with the state of f/f shipping in the Ace Attorney fandom, and there are definitely some elements they discussed that I agree with.

While I don't feel that FranMaya is exactly a "crackship" per se, I do agree that it's overly represented given the amount of time that the characters actually spend with one another in canon (which is next to nothing.) The pairing is largely speculative and results from Maya and Franziska being considered as sidekicks to or subcategorized to to their male counterparts, Phoenix and Miles.

It definitely comes off as very "pair the spares" to me– specifically in I feel like the pairing got started more because people ship narumitsu rather than finding Maya and Franiziska as having any chemistry in their own right.

The post I read was unfortunate also correct that a large subsection of the fandom will go off if you do pair either of them with anyone else.  There tends to be a low tolerance in the Ace Attorney fandom in some ways for shipping outside of the main top pairings-- this isn't unique to femlash, people will come at you for the wrong slash pairings, or het pairings also.

Franziska and Adrian Andrews was brought up, which is a pairing that I personally find very compelling, and plan to write more of in the future.

I feel like if Adrian was less of a "one case wonder" and got more screen time that this could have developed into a fairly common pairing.

Another pairing discussed was another favorite of mine, Trucy and Pearl. This particular pairing I think suffers from the heavy infantilization of both the characters.

While in the last game, Trucy is 17 and Pearl is 18, both of them are introduced to the series as children, which I think makes many fans hesitant to write them in any romantic or shippy material.

However, I feel like the best way to combat all of this is the same as combating most fandom problems simply to keep putting the material out there that you want to see, in whatever capacity you enjoy, be that fic, art, edits, meta or just talking about the pairings.

[indigostudies]

a very incomplete list of cdramas (plus a few chinese films) i've watched and my rating for hsk proficiencies for them below the cut!

i've watched some shows that aren't included on this list, but i didn't watch enough of them to get a good sense for the level of challenge they pose, so they're omitted from the list. i've also included links to the mydramalist pages, if you want to get a sense of the plot.

i had to remove the list format, since tumblr decided i had too many characters per block of text, so i apologise for that. a number of these can be watched on youtube with english fansubs, but if you can't find something, you can always dm me and i'll get you a link!

沙海/tomb of the sea: this fits into the extended daomu biji/grave robbers' chronicles/lost tomb franchise, but you don't have to have seen the other shows or read the books to watch it, and the pov character is an outsider who also doesn't understand what's going on 90% of the time. this show is contemporary, and you could probably start watching it at a fairly low hsk level because it doesn't have a ton of complicated technical or genre-specific terms. the subbing in english decent, since it came out a while ago, but there are some errors that crop up with names and nicknames. if you wanted to watch it without subtitles, i'd say you could probably get the gist of what's being said at around an hsk 4 or hsk 5 level. it has 52 episodes, each around 45 minutes long. (mdl link)

双镜/couple of mirrors: set in the republican era, so some of the terms used are a bit outdated in terms of colloquialism, and it also has a mystery/detective element to it, so that could pose a bit of a struggle. that said, the show isn't actually too challenging in terms of vocab—i would say you could watch it without english subtitles at an hsk 3 level with some struggle, and with a fair amount of ease at hsk 4. 12 episodes, at 46 minutes each. (mdl link)

云泽传/legend of yunze: wuxia/xianxia, which makes the amount of unfamiliar terms higher if you aren't used to the genre, but the episodes are all very short, and the plot itself isn't overly complicated, which makes it easy to sit down and watch in one go. on a level of difficulty, as long as you're familiar with wuxia/xianxia terms, you could probably watch this at an hsk 2 level without too much issue, and the subbing in english is very thorough. has multiple seasons, but the first season is 12 episodes, between 3-7 minutes each. (mdl link)

神探/detective l: this is a procedural detective show, and it's set in the 1930s republican shanghai, so there's a combination of more formal/outdated language and specialised detective/case-related phrases. the english subs are decent, though, and the actors all enunciate clearly, which helps if you need to look up words. i would say this would probably be a bit of a struggle below the hsk 5 level, but you'll pick up a lot of new, crime-related phrases. 24 episodes, 40 minutes each. (mdl link)

不良执念清除师/oh no! here comes trouble!: i'll be honest, this one was a struggle for me because of the taiwanese accent. i can understand what they're saying, it just sounds like the auditory equivalent of someone coming into my house and moving everything a few centimetres to the left. this is also a procedural show, but contemporary, so not quite as challenging in terms of vocab to detective l, in my opinion..........but it's also got a heavy supernatural element, which does come with specific vocab. the subbing is good, but if you're going to watch it, this one probably requires a higher hsk level to keep up—hsk 5, at a minimum, in my opinion. 12 episodes, 52 minutes each. (mdl link)

s.c.i谜案集/sci mystery/sci: another contemporary procedural mystery show, but from the mainland, so there's no elements of supernatural. surprisingly simple vocabulary; you could watch this at an hsk 2 level and get the gist, and an hsk 3 or hsk 4 level would let you watch it just fine. has fairly good english subs, and i believe they set the show in hk, which accounts for the higher than usual amount of english usage, up to and including in dialogue. the only bit that might make it challenging is the heavy lean into the psychology, but it's all largely explained directly, since most of the characters aren't familiar with the terms either. 24 episodes, 45 minutes each. (mdl link)

成化十四年/sleuth of the ming dynasty: ming dynasty (mid 1400s, under the chenghua emperor) setting, but a fairly colloquial vocabulary. there are some specialised titles used, but those are fairly self-evident by the way the show is shot, and easy enough to look up. the english subs are good, and i would put this at an hsk 4 level—but even at an hsk 3 level you probably won't struggle too badly. my hangup here was, again, one of the leads being played by an actor with a taiwanese accent, though it's not too heavy. 48 episodes, 45 minutes each. (mdl link)

老九门/the mystic nine: dmbj prequel, set in the tail end of the republican era (1939, if i remember correctly?). has a lot of tomb- and tomb-robbing specific vocabulary, alongside the more dated modes of speech, so i would put this up at an hsk 5 or hsk 6 level, but there's decent subs, so you could watch it at lower levels, it would just be a bit of a challenge. 48 episodes, 42 minutes each. (mdl link)

猎罪图鉴/under the skin: contemporary procedural show; there's a lot of emotion- and motive-specific words used, and the fact that it's a procedural makes it a bit more challenging, in my opinion. i would recommend that don't start with this show, just because of the fact that it's pretty easy to get lost if you don't grasp some of the vocabulary. i'd put it at an hsk 6 level, but that said, the subs are good and you can watch it at an hsk 5 level with some effort, i think. 20 episodes, 45 minutes each. (mdl link)

春风沉醉的夜晚/spring fever: honestly not as challenging in terms of vocabulary as a lot of things on this list, and fairly contemporary (set in the 2000s). i would say if you're at an hsk 4 level, you will probably do alright with it. 116 minutes in total. (mdl link)

关于我和鬼变成家人的那件事/marry my dead body: another case of struggling to acclimate to the taiwanese accent; otherwise, not too complicated in terms of vocab, though there are some spirit/marriage-specific terms used. overall, though, i'd put this at an hsk 4 level as well. 130 minutes in total. (mdl link)

陈情令/the untamed: heavy on the wuxia/xianxia elements, so unless you're familiar with that, you might struggle a lot to get through it. this is a lot of peoples' entry into cdramas, though, so it's not utterly inaccessible, and has decent english subs. i would put this around an hsk 5, if you want to watch it without subs, though you'll probably still have to pause and look up some words here and there even then. 50 episodes, 45 minutes each, making it the longest on this list. (mdl link)

山河令/word of honour: arguably the hardest on this list, i would say, because it's so plot-heavy. i, as a native speaker, struggle to follow along with this for extended amounts of time because there's a combination of 1. a lot happening, 2. a lot of wuxia terms, and 3. a lot of references to literature/art/etc. i would put this up at an hsk 7 level, honestly. that said, the subs for this are very good. 36 official episodes with a 37th mini-episode, 45 minutes each for the regular ones. (mdl link)

天官赐福/heaven official's blessing: one of the easier shows on this list; i would put this at an hsk 3 or hsk 4 level; there's some words you probably won't know, but while it does fall under xianxia, it doesn't go into that as much in terms of vocabulary as cql/the untamed does. i believe both seasons have both official subbing and official dubbing into english available, but that's not how i watched it, and i've only seen the first season, which is 11 episodes and about 20 minutes per episode. (mal link)

致命游戏/the spirealm: not particularly challenging in terms of actual vocab, but as of yet, only the first few episodes are subbed, since it came out literally this month, and the other subs are all auto-generated and.............very lacking. that said, it's a contemporary setting, and i would put this at an hsk 5 level, give or take; there are some references to folklore, but the characters research and explain or deduce the explanations of what is happening as it occurs, and you aren't left to struggle to figure it out yourself. 78 episodes, but each one is a bit under 20 minutes long, so it actually isn't that much content in total. (mdl link)

[llyfrenfys]

Bad Takes in the Welsh tag vol. II- this reblog on a post about the number of Welsh speakers. (I have cropped out the username of OP and as ever, I only focus on the sentiment, not the person. If you know OP's url kindly do not send them anon hate etc.).

So I saw this take a few days ago in a reblog on a post in the Welsh tag and wanted to address this sentiment as well, since it does the opposite of that other bad take that I saw and made a post about the other day. To be clear, I don't disagree entirely with OP, but there's an element of wishful thinking that I sometimes see when it comes to Welsh / other minoritised languages which can end up doing more harm than good.

This screenshot was also discussed in the LGBTQIA+ Welsh Discord I run and the broad consensus from those of us in there who live in Wales is that OP is painting a very inaccurate picture of the status of Welsh, particularly of Welsh in North Wales. It is frustrating when you have people who value Welsh, but don't value Welsh enough to bother with accuracy in their promotion of the language. This post is intended as a gentle reminder that we can fight for the Welsh language without misrepresenting the situation on the ground so to speak.

The post itself has a 'fuck yeah, Welsh!' attitude which I personally love. But sadly this particular post is riddled with misinformation. First of all, we have "Welsh law is that all signs must have We[l]sh text on them but there is nothing in the law that says signs must also have English on them". Now the wording is kinda vague here- but I'm going out on a limb and saying that the OP is likely referencing The Welsh Language Standards Guidelines (which have been updated several times over the years). The guidance has a number of Standards relating to signs in the Welsh language, such as Standard 32, Standards 47-52, Standard 66 and Standards 111-113. The section of Interpreting the Standards also contains relevant text, such as in Part 3- Interpreting the Standards article 15:

Plain text: "For the purposes of the standards a requirement to publish, provide or display any written material in Welsh does not mean that material should be published, provided or, displayed in Welsh only, nor does it mean that the material should be produced in Welsh first (unless that is specifically stated in the standard)"

Of the Standards listed above, Standards 47-52 are specifically designated as Standards relating to signs and notices displayed or published by a body. Which state things like "... if the same text is displayed in Welsh and in English, you must not treat the Welsh language text less favourably than the English language text" - Standard 47 and "You must ensure that the Welsh language text on signs and notices is accurate in terms of meaning and expression" - Standard 49.

Anyway, back to the point. OP is incorrect in stating that there is a loophole by which the Welsh Law forgot to specify that the signs had to have English as well as Welsh and that public bodies can get away with monolingual Welsh signs. This just isn't true. Important to note is that the law is intended for public bodies- so big companies, road signage makers etc. This guidance isn't for random farms in North Wales which have signs that say "wyau <-" pointing up the lane with no English translation.

Now, the next sentence is a little loaded, well-meant, but a little loaded nonetheless. "The Welsh nationalist dominated rural authorities in the North"- it's loadedness comes down to its vagueness I think. While it isn't wrong per se that Welsh Nationalist parties like Plaid Cymru do well in the North West, it is a little skewed to ascribe Welsh speaking status to whichever party is doing the best in a given area. It isn't that clear cut, unfortunately. To get into this issue, we have to talk maps.

So those Welsh speaker maps that have nice gradients and have the West of Wales coloured in dark, gradually getting lighter as you move East? Unfortunately, these maps can be very misleading (especially if, like in the map OP was commenting on, the source of the data was left off). But the long and short of it is- these maps tend to imply that Welsh is exclusively spoken in the NW and that everywhere East of Bangor has had it. But the data presentation is very flawed, since it tends to erase Welsh language gains in places like Cardiff, Swansea and Monmouthshire.

You've all seen maps like this right? NW in the darkest colours and SE in the lightest?

Unfortunately when it comes to these kinds of maps, they can be very misleading from a language revitalisation point of view.

Here's some maps I actually studied at undergrad for this purpose

On the face of it, your eyes zip up to Gwynedd and Môn on the first map and then over to the second and- 'oh no!' you might say, there's been a -2.1 to -4.0 percent decline in Welsh speakers in those areas. And of course, this is something that language revitalisation wants to address. But look at the first map again. Look at, Monmouthshire, Caerphilly, Cardiff and Swansea. Then look at the second map.

Welsh speaking is actually being increased in these areas, between 2001 to 2011.

The misleading nature of a language map like this one is not its borders, its colour or key, but its omission of the sociopolitcal forces at play in language revitalisation. Large population centres like Cardiff, Caerphilly, Newport and Swansea are actively gaining more Welsh speakers. While Gwynedd and Môn are losing some. But Welsh speaking (despite a few wobbles) is on the increase. So where did those Welsh speakers from the North go?

South.

It isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but many rural Welsh speakers (especially those who live in areas with high amounts of holiday homes which drive up rent/cost of staying in villages in North Wales) actually end up moving to more urban areas in the South, meaning that some of the decline of Welsh speaking in North Wales is down to Welsh speakers just, moving to a different part of Wales- which in turn makes those areas see an increase in Welsh being spoken.

Of course, we actually have to address the cause of the exodus of Welsh speakers from rural areas holiday homes raising house prices making them unaffordable for locals and drives them away but the way that our data is represented is not as dire as it looks. Still not great, mind, but not apocalyptic either.

Then there's the other inaccuracies in this post. Small businesses like farm shops, high street businesses and houses can have Welsh-only signage because they are not local authorities and much of the guidance indirectly referenced by OP mostly only applies to local authorities. This is how you have farm shops advertising produce in Welsh only, or shop names in Welsh (such as Siop y Pethe and Broc-Môr in Aberystwyth) or the name of the house my flat is in. Businesses have different regulations for signage inside the shop in different situations. But the guidance indirectly referred to by OP in the screenshot mostly applies to road signage.

Big name brands such as Tesco are definitely not going to have monolingual Welsh stores and it is disinformation to suggest that they do- especially not when they've made gaffes such as "sboncen" to mean squash (the drink). "Sboncen" means squash (the sport), while they should have put "sgwash", meaning the drink.

Or my favourite instance of these "arwyddion gwael", in which instead of offering a free ATM service, this ATM on the Tesco Express in Aberystwyth offered "codiad am ddim" (free erections):

So I dread to think what a fully monolingual poorly translated Welsh Tesco would look like.

I don't disagree with OP on the final part, that we should celebrate Welsh's "punk ass attitude" in surviving despite attempts to eradicate it from existence. But spreading false information is definitely not the way we should be doing that.

Instead, we can celebrate things like the National Eisteddfod coming to places like Wrecsam in 2025, which aren't typically selected due to there being fewer speakers. But what bringing the National Eisteddfod to areas with low-speakers does is reestablish that yes, actually, Welsh deserves to be spoken all over Wales, not just in Y Fro Gymraeg (Welsh concept equivalent of the Gaeltacht in Ireland). It's an active, real reclamation of areas previously lost for Welsh and revitalising them by bringing the language back with the biggest Welsh language event anywhere.

[hendrik-ten-napel]

Most of the time, I like to have a fairly worked-out game when I start testing. No notes-on-a-napkin for me. But yesterday, I went into a playtest without the full material for the first time. The sessions were going well and I wanted to see how it would feel to do some design at the table.

The last category of clues for my mystery game is called Recapitulation. They serve to answer the question: "What do you plan to do about [the antagonist]?" While I had some idea of what those clues could be, the image hadn't really cleared up. So I thought: maybe I can just see what we need.

When the first moment to drop such a new clue came around, I still couldn't figure it out. In general, that could've become a moment of panic for me, but this time, probably because of the specific group I'm testing with, I didn't. Instead, I explained the issue—which was still scary!

After I explained what clues I was looking for, the players all pitched in. We used the scene that was just interrupted as an example and tried to think of good leads. We also thought about changing the question to something more narrow, like: "How will you avenge [the victim]?"

Then it hit me. A good, general clue that I could contextualize for the situation at hand, and that would work well with the question we started out with. I've been thinking about that moment, about how the conversation helped create it. Why didn't the player's suggestions irk me, for example?

The game is a Carved from Brindlewood. It's a hack of The Between, mostly. The things me and the players discussed yesterday, the clues and questions, weren't mechanics per se. More like the content of those mechanics, I guess. That made a difference, I think.

It was like discussing possible fiction. That's what I've concluded up until now, at least. While I'm not fond of discussing mechanics, at least not ad hoc, nor do I like unrequested notes on my writing, this was closer to play, closer to workshopping a scene, for example.

So I learned something about the details and elements of a game that I am comfortable determining at the table, and that feels like a nice, little achievement. I let go of some control, I trusted the people I know to care, and it worked: that first clue led to nine more today. I've finished writing the Recapitulation.

[qqueenofhades]

Hello! I would love to hear about your favourite historical fictions - I've been looking recently for some nice historical mysteries specifically (I grew up on Brother Cadfael and I've been indulging in some nostalgic re-reading), and I am always looking for new ones if you have any in your wheelhouse. Thank you so much in advance, and I've also been enjoying everyone's recs for you - so thanks to them vicariously too :)

Not all these are historical MYSTERIES per se, but for historical fiction, this is what I can think of that I have read semi-recently and which comes to mind when I am away from my bookshelves:

The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova. Longtime favorite, still love it; literary mystery! Dracula! Eastern European history! I also picked up her most recent one, The Shadow Land, and devoured it in about three days. There is both a historical and a contemporary plot line and I snarfed it all down.

The Glass Palace by Amitav Ghosh. This is not historical mystery, but it is gorgeously written and very evocative historical fiction/family saga, set in Burma around the turn of the twentieth century and exploring the changes of war, colonialism, family, destiny, and more.

Babel by R.F. Kuang. This is historical fantasy, but she is an ungodly brilliant writer, it's set in an alternate magical Oxford in the 19th century, it deals with history, translation, empire, culture, racism, language, power, and so much more, and the ending made me BAWL. One of my favorite books ever, read it.

Trust by Hernan Diaz. Booker Prize winner; multiple narratives; explores Gilded Age New York and different perspectives on history and truth; there's a mystery element to it but it's highly sophisticated yet easily readable literary fiction.

The Ministry of Time by Kaliane Bradley. This is more contemporary-sci fi, though its main plot is about time travel, history, how power uses that history, and more. I include it here because it's one of my favorite recently published books; it's funny, moving, and one of those books that sneaks up on you with unexpected depth, so I am adding it here.

Edited to add: If you love Brother Cadfael, I'm SURE you've read The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, but if not, yes, Posthaste.

[bimboficationblues]

as that anon message you got shows, the term "liberal" gets hurled around a lot as an insult on the left. what would you say are the necessary and sufficient conditions to be a liberal? i think having a straight answer for this would help remedy this sort of behavior

not sure what anon you're referring to. regrettably I don't think you're going to get people to stop using terms in loose or disagreeable ways no matter what, it just is the nature of political terminology (definitionally up for contestation) and language in general. part of the difficulty here is that the same term gets used to describe a political system, an ideology or hegemonic worldview, and a form of political identification

but as far as necessary/sufficient conditions go I like Charles Mills' formulation:

an axiology: committed to individual freedom to pursue the Good, governance by 'consent', the guarantee of specific political and economic rights (non-exhaustive list)

a social ontology: equal moral persons who are atomized or individualized and whose individuality, particularly their self-interested pursuit of their own Good, makes a functional society

a theory of history: endless progress, the accumulation of knowledge and the application of it to advancing human well-being (though this can be more or less Panglossian)

and would add a couple of my own:

a political methodology that gives priority to reform and positive law

an economic worldview that emphasizes the efficiency of money and markets and affirms private property as a central right (often *the* central right)

my own sort of working definition of liberalism writ large is that it's a kind of aristocratic legalism which has a key value of "security" (this is inspired by the work of Geoff Mann and Mark Neocleous), an investment in predictable, consistent outcomes that also expresses itself as a fundamental anxiety about the tenuousness of these institutions and of "civilization" as a whole (an interesting point of overlap between Keynes and Hayek). that's what I kind of see as the throughline between the combination of money, markets, law, and reform.

I would say that the elements listed above which automatically send up the yellow flag, for me, are the political methodology and the theory of history - either a sort of blinkered optimism/false realism about the ability to endlessly patch up our existing institutions or someone who has bought into a kind of linear historical narrative of constant improvement

even though I am not a market socialist and think that is probably excessively "liberal" for my own tastes, I think it is plausible to hold that position without being a liberal, if that makes any sense (it may not). inversely, the axiology of freedom, universalism, &c., often get cited as exclusive to liberalism, but I really don't think they are and remain unpersuaded by the various factions (commie, lib, postcolonialist, and so on) that have argued otherwise. not that I think ideas of freedom, equality, etc. are above conceptual critique per se, but I think I wouldn't assume somebody is a lib because they truck in that language.

[42lolita]

Guide To Ouji Fashion For Beginners: Dos And Don’ts

Boystyle (ボーイスタイル), also referred to as Ouji (王子) in pop culture is a fashion style that is frequently associated with lolita fashion. Although it is not Lolita style per se, it is more of a masculine counterpart of the fashion style. It shares many of the aesthetic elements of the Lolita style. If you are a Lolita fan, you are bound to fall in love with the Ouji fashion, also called Kodona Fashion.

The Ouji fashion follows its rules and can be pretty different from the Lolita fashion. Given that the word "ouji" means "prince," it contrasts with the princess-inspired Lolita aesthetic. However, this is just a brief overview of the world of Ouji fashion. Keep reading to dive deep into the beautiful world of Ouji Lolita fashion! 

A Short Introduction To Ouji Fashion

The Ouji fashion is a Japanese trend frequently considered the Lolita fashion’s masculine counterpart. Don't mistake it for a sub-style, though; it is a full-fledged fashion item in itself. Since “Ouji” means prince in Japanese, you may think of it as the male Lolita fashion or even as the “Prince” to the Lolita fashion’s “princess.”

The primary distinction between the Ouji look and its feminine counterpart is the use of pants rather than skirts. The Victorian clothing style has also had an impact on the pants, which come in a variety of lengths. Vests and blouses will go with them. Most outfits may pair a waistcoat with it to complete the look.

So a typical Ouji outfit consists of the following: a blouse, pants, a vest or a jacket, shoes, socks, and, if desired, a hat. When you put these together to create an Ouji coordinate, it should look masculine yet elegant. A vital factor to note is that, although it’s supposed to be "masculine" fashion, anyone –regardless of gender- can wear it.

Types Of Ouji Fashion Style

There are numerous sub styles and themes for Ouji fashion. It has the same three primary substyles as Lolita: classic, sweet, and gothic. However, there is a lot more overlap between these sub-styles, which aren’t as clearly defined. Even so, let’s look at the different types of Ouji fashion styles -

1. Sweet Ouji

The sweet Ouji style refers to more adorable, youthful, and innocent coordination. This style adheres to some of the same guidelines as Sweet Lolita, a sub-style of the Lolita fashion. But this style has a lot more of a “Shota” or young boy vibe.

People who wear this style often pair it with a cute Lolita to twin with them. Some common themes or motifs are school-style, circus, sailor, and white rabbits. There aren’t many hard and fast rules for the set.

But generally, the outfit should include a blouse with ruffles. The pant length will depend on the person’s tastes, but pumpkin or puffed ones are more common. Other common elements include cropped or high-waisted vests, ribbon neck bows, mini crowns, or mini hats.

2. Classic Ouji

The emphasis on elegance and a refined air characterize classic Ouji. This substyle has a more traditional “Princely” feeling. It is more sophisticated than sweet—most Ouji that aren't overly sweet or gothic fall within the classic Ouji substyle. The whole coordination should give off a refined and more mature vibe.

People who practice this style frequently wear boots. They also have specific buttons and structures for the jacket to be considered Classic Ouji, and even the pockets are unique.

The Classic Ouji fashion follows a significant historical influence. The typical elements of this style include – knee-length or longer pants, full-sized bicorn, tricorn or cavalier hats, waist-length or longer vests and jackets, and elegant jabots or neck-bows. The most common themes or motifs can be military, pirate, or royalty.

3. Gothic Ouji

Gothic Ouji exudes a sense of darkness that can take the form of opulent decadence, distressed decay, or a simple, angular design. Generally, Gothic Oujis favor darker color schemes, makeup, patterns, and fashion—people who follow this outfit typically twin with the Gothic Lolitas.

To perfect the Gothic Ouji look, you must have a lot of specific details, just like the two styles mentioned above. The buttons, bows, and pockets should follow the particular Ouji rules. This Ouji style often gets inspiration from Visual-Kei elements such as big hair, platform boots, and flamboyance. The most common aspect of this Ouji style is the color black.

The outfit features jewel tones like navy or Bordeaux to contrast the black. The Ouji style also uses a lot of textures instead of colors, such as jacquard, velvet, or distressed fabric. Another common element is capes and overskirts made from long flowing fabric. The most common themes include vampires, priests, and crosses.

5 Simple Dos And Don’ts about Ouji Fashion You Should Know About

If you are a beginner in Ouji fashion, there may be various elements of this fashion world that you may want to know before delving deeper. Mainly because many people tend to confuse Ouji fashion with Lolita fashion, the more widely recognized fashion style of the two.

So we bring you some simple dos and don’ts in Ouji fashion that you should keep in mind as a beginner.

1. Ruffled Blouse Over Plain Blouse

When you are doing an Ouji look, plain button-ups work fine. But when you pair them with a jacket or vest with a longer neck, the simple button-up can look a bit too simple. So you may opt for a more extravagant and frilly shirt that brings detail to the neck. Ruffles, jabots, neck bows, lace, and big collars are some details that favor the Ouji style.

2. Pants Define The Ouji Look

Pants are one of the essential elements of the Ouji look, as they are the main element that set the style apart from Lolita. Shorts and knickerbockers are the most common styles and lengths of pants that bring the Ouji vibe to an outfit.

Pants will also determine your Ouji style for the day. Long pants work best if you want a gothic and mature look.

3. Accessorize A You Want

When it comes to accessories, only the sky is the limit for you. Simply play around with it. If you already have a lot of Lolita accessories or other gothic ones, they may also complement the Ouji style. Some of the most common accessories in Ouji fashion are ties, bowties, jabots, lace, pocket watches, waist chain, etc.

4. Invest In Real Top Hats

Hats are most probably the most common element of the Ouji look. The two hat types most frequently seen in the style are top hats (mini or not) and tricorns (mini or not). Nevertheless, wearing newsboy hats and bowlers is also possible.

It’s best to avoid buying costume hats when you’re out shopping for hats. Authentic top hats look much better and aren’t even that expensive. Please note that if you buy these hats internationally, the shipping fee usually will be very high as the hats will involve volumetric weight.

5. Try Not To Look Too Casual

In the Ouji style, it’s best to avoid looking "too casual." Simply pairing a button-up with shorts or capris does not look boyish. Such an outfit seems uninspired and boring. Adding a few small accessories allows you to turn even the most basic style into something more attractive.

Conclusion

For everyone starting their Ouji journey, the new terminologies and overlapping substyles can be a bit overwhelming. So for all the beginners out there, we share a guide to Ouji fashion in this article.

I hope it has helped you start your journey with a clear idea of the beautiful world of Ouji fashion. Thanks for reading up till now.

[thewitchywitch]

Palmistry 100

Okay so these aren't exactly notes per se, but this is the first post in a series I'm planning to make about palmistry, and this post is dedicated to breaking down misconceptions and false information that I've seen a lot of people hold onto in their palmistry practice.

This post is a bit long, so I've put everything under the cut!

So first off:

Palmistry doesn't tell you "the future", it's not at all like typical divination methods where you can divine stuff about the future (knowing that it's always changing of course). Palmistry also doesn't tell you when you're going to die or the cause of death like is shown in plenty of movies and shows.

Palmistry does give you insight into someone's character, both externally and internally (which we'll get into later on). A good palmist can also offer advice about strengths and weaknesses in someone's personality, and offer communication techniques as well.

Anyone can learn palmistry, regardless of intuitive abilities or background.

A very common misconception is that because the practice is referred to as "palmistry" that only the lines on the hand are read. This is false, as the entirety of the hand is read from the major and minor lines, to skin texture, to finger length, angles of some knuckles, dermatoglyphics (fingerprints and palmar ridges), and even the way someone holds out their hand for you to read. You can actually get a very solid reading based on finger length, skin texture, and dermatoglyphics alone without reading into the major and minor lines on the palm.

Another common misconception is that only one hand—the dominant hand—is read. Any good palmist knows to read both hands and they would show different aspects of someone (this is something I'll go more in depth on in the next post)

And last but not least, the palms—or hands, rather—change over time. Skin texture, minor lines, knuckles, the plushiness of the thumb, and other signs will change over time, especially with age. I can point out specific minor lines on my own palms and say "This one wasn't here 6 years ago," or "This one has gotten deeper and more prominent in the past 4 years," or "There used to be a line right about here 2 years ago." A good way to keep track of changes is with taking a print, which I'll also explain in the next post.

Also, not a misconception, but something I see in a lot of palmistry resources is gendered language. I find that relying on gender to determine different qualities of a factor in someone's hand is lazy, cheap, and exclusionary. My younger brother has some qualities on his hands that are considered "feminine" or "usually found on a woman's hands," and I don't subscribe to that sort of language when reading palms because it's often exclusionary and doesn't offer any information or true insight. You can't take something as diverse as people's hands and try to shove them into two boxes, it doesn't work that way.

Also not a misconception, but something I want to address now before moving forward with this series of posts is a brief note about "parlor palmistry" and "elemental hand shapes". I'm sure many of you have seen those posts going around explaining the different elemental hand shapes, and I'm not going to discount it; because when I was a beginner in palmistry, I used to base a lot of my knowledge of someone off of the basic shape of their hand, and I was usually fairly accurate. I consider this part of parlor palmistry, which is usually done in very brief readings and is mainly for entertainment. It offers a very broad look at someone's personality without much deep insight. And it's perfectly fine to do in the right setting, like at summer camps or cafes, or doing a free reading in the break room at work. Parlor palmistry should never be done for profit, however, as it offers no real and deep insight, sorta like trying to tell someone details about their inner ways of thinking based only off of knowing that they're a capricorn. So that being said, we won't be going over parlor palmistry in this series—we'll be going into the nitty gritty details of true palmistry.

So there we have it, those are some common misconceptions and brief points about palm reading that I wanted to make before we get started with this series. Also, as this is a very visual practice, I will be using real pictures and diagrams to show certain points when necessary, because I personally can't stand reading about palmistry and not being able to see an example of what they're talking about!

I'm still drafting out how I want to format these posts, especially when I get into more detailed topics (I'm afraid of the dermatoglyphics posts, I'm going to need sooo many example photos). So if y'all have any questions about anything or points you want me to explain/cover, please feel free to comment under this post or send me an ask or message.

I'm absolutely going to start collecting pictures now from any willing volunteers. If you have any marks or lines or features you think would make for a good example in my posts, please send them my way! Anyone who sends me a picture will get a brief explanation of the visible features as a thankyou :)