#obviously grossly oversimplified

[sunnywalnut]

Dylan Mulvaney: hehe^^ here's some cute things I personally do in order to validate my Identity as a woman! I enjoy these things because they make me feel feminine, cute, and powerful!

TERFs: and I took that personally.

[aphverse-confessions]

Might be an unpopular opinion, but the only reason why MCRPs aren't popular anymore is because Jess isn't doing them anymore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

.

[amateurvoltaire]

When you get publicly slapped by 4 surrealist poets because you insulted a guy's historical crush

(translation and context under the cut)

Gallantly Defending Robespierre’s Honour

In the conservative daily paper, Le Gaulois, on March 3, 1923, the journalist and man of letters, Wieland Mayr, expressed his pleasure: there would not be, he wrote, a "vile apotheosis" for "that holy scoundrel" Robespierre. On the other hand, Mathiez had the Surrealists with him. Following the article in Le Gaulois, Robert Desnos (1), accompanied by Paul Éluard (2), Max Ernst (3), and André Breton (4), summoned Mayr in a café and publicly slapped him for insulting the memory of "the Incorruptible."

Why did Mayr get Slapped?

In short: studying history in the 1920s was a messy business, especially when it came to the French Revolution….

To explain why Mayr ended up getting slapped, please allow me to briefly dive into the French Revolution's historiography during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Keep in mind, that this is a grossly oversimplified version.

Before 1848, it was pretty standard for French republicans to proudly see themselves as inheritors of Robespierre’s legacy. (If you’ve ever wondered why in Les Misérables, Enjolras’ character is very much channeling Robespierre and Saint-Just, here’s your answer!) However, things start to change with the Second Republic.

In 1847, Jules Michelet brought back the negative portrayal of Robespierre as a tyrannical "priest" and leader of a new cult. This narrative helped fuel an increasing dislike for Robespierre, with radicals like Auguste Blanqui arguing that the real revolutionaries were the atheistic Hébertists, not the Robespierrists.

Jump to the Third Republic, and the negative sentiment towards Robespierre was only getting stronger, driven by voices like Hippolyte Taine, who painted Robespierre as a mediocre figure, overwhelmed by his role. This trend was politically motivated, aiming to reshape the Revolution's legacy to align with the Third Republic's secular values. Obviously, Robespierre, the "fanatic pontiff" of the Supreme Being, didn’t quite fit this revised narrative and was made out to be the villain. Alphonse Aulard (a historian willing to stretch the truth to make his point) continued pushing Danton as the face of secular republicanism. Albert Mathiez, one of Aulard’s students, was not having any of it and strongly disagreed with his mentor’s approach.

The general disdain for Robespierre began to shift after World War I. One reason was that people could better appreciate the actions of the Revolutionary Government after experiencing the repression during the war themselves. Albert Mathiez and his colleagues were actively working to change Robespierre's tarnished image. With tensions high, it's no wonder Mayr ended up being publicly slapped by a bunch of poets who were defending the Incorruptible's honour!

Notes

Robert Desnos (1900-1945) was a French poet deeply associated with the Surrealist movement, known for his revolutionary contributions to both poetry and resistance during World War II.

Paul Éluard (1895-1952) was a French poet and one of the founding members of the Surrealist movement, celebrated for his lyrical and passionate writings on love and liberty.

Max Ernst (1891-1976) was a German painter, sculptor, graphic artist, and poet, a pioneering figure in the Dada and Surrealist movements known for his inventive use of collage and exploration of the unconscious.

André Breton (1896-1966) was a French writer, poet, and anti-fascist, best known as the principal founder and leading theorist of Surrealism, promoting the liberation of the human mind.

Source: The text in the picture comes from Robespierre and the Social Republic by Albert Mathiez

[starryalpacasstuff]

Dhamma in The Sign

Hearing about Dhamma, my mind immediately went to Dharma, a hindi word often used in tandem with Karma, and a quick google search confirmed that yes, Dhamma is simply the Prakrit (a group of ancient languages) variant of the word Dharma.

It's hard to explain what dharma/dhamma is is english, but I'll do my best. Dhamma is said to mean 'to uphold'. And, in some way, this is true. Dharma revolves around duty, order, and the law of nature. Everyone is born with their own dharma, and must carry it out.

One of the best ways to explain the concept of dharma is the story behind the Bhagvad Gita. I'll do my best to summarize it in a way that is comprehendable to people who've never heard of it.

We begin at the very beginning of a battle, with Arjuna, a great warrior prince. His charioteer is Krishna, an avatar (form on Earth) of the god Vishnu, one of the big 3 gods in Hinduism. Arjuna surveys the battlefield, and sees his uncles and cousins on the opposing side, realizing that he will have to fight against family, and the insurmountable bloodshed that would follow. He fears that waging this war will be adharmic (the opposite of dharma). Arjuna hesitates. He tells Krishna if his worries, who then begins to lecture Arjuna. This lecture is now known as the Bhagvad Gita. Grossly oversimplified, the crux of it is that fighting in this battle is a part of Arjuna's dharma. He is a warrior, and a prince, and this battle is necessary for him and his brothers to regain their kingdom. Fleeing from the battlefield, as Arjuna thought of doing, is what would be considered adharmic.

This is, imo, the best way I can explain the concept of dharma. It heavily emphasizes the concept of the duty that everyone is born with, and must carry out. Obviously, our dharma won't be fighting in a war, but everyone has their own dharma to carry out. Dharma and karma together shape our lives.

I'm hoping we'll learn more about Phaya and Tharn's dharma in future episodes, becauseit would be truly fascinating. Here, the monk (forgive me, I don't remember his name) mentions how dharma helps us distinguish right and wrong; following our duty is right, deviating is wrong. I suspect that Phaya and Tharn deviated from their respective dharmas in their previous lives, Tharn in particular.

Finally, I am by no means an expert on these things. I've offered a rudimentary explanation, but I honestly have no idea how much of this actually makes sense, so I'm tagging @waitmyturtles in case she'd like to add something here. Turtles, I know you're not watching The Sign, but you have been interacting with a few posts about it, so forgive me for asking for a bit of help here.

Side note: Dharma is pronounced as dha-rm, just like Karma is pronounced as ka-rm, NOT kaar-maa. The 'a' makes an 'uh' sound, not aa. Similarly, Dhamma is pronounced as dhamm. And, in The Sign, Karma is said as Kamma, which has essentially the same relationship to Karma as Dhamma does to Dharma.

[ashleywool]

What would you need from the fans of How To Dance In Ohio for a ProShot to be streamed somewhere like Broadway HD or similar? Would it need to be a Kickstarter or a social media campaign? Is there anyone we can write to? Part of my reason for asking is selfish, since I would love to see the show, but this show is also historic and groundbreaking in a lot of different ways and I also think your amazing performances need to be preserved as a part of Broadway history.

I know this is probably a really sad time for you and the rest of the Ohio cast/creative team and even if a ProShot never happens and nothing ever comes of it, just know that you, all of you, touched more lives and hearts than you could possibly know just by being who you are.

Thanks so much for asking. This is something we have been discussing with the producers, because obviously we'd all love it to happen too.

Warning: incoming info-dump, albeit a grossly oversimplified one:

It would cost about $3M to produce a pro-shot. Here's an incomplete list of where that money would go:

-The regular costs of the venue itself--which, when you include rent, utilities, and staff salaries (security, bartenders, ushers, custodians, all the people who are just in charge of maintaining the Belasco), comes out to about $1K a minute.

-The labor of obtaining necessary permits for filming onsite.

-The labor of the film crew, including load-in, setup, and breakdown of equipment, and coordinating with stage management to make sure their shooting doesn't get in the way of backstage choreography, and making any adjustments accordingly

-The collaboration between the film crew and the in-house sound crew to make sure the audio is captured and balanced properly

-The labor of post-production: editing, color correction, sound adjustment, etc.

-There are also different contracts (and higher pay) for the actors, stage managers, stage crew, sound crew, lighting crew, and wardrobe crew, in addition to our current contracts wherein we're just doing the show as usual. This can get particularly complicated with the actors and stage managers, since our Broadway contracts are through Actors' Equity Association (the union for stage actors and stage managers) but the contract for having our work filmed and distributed in theaters or on streaming platforms is under SAG-AFTRA (the union for film actors).

This is not a complete list, but to give you some context: that's about what it would cost just to make the thing. The costs and logistics of actually distributing it is a different story altogether, and a lot of that would depend on strategizing around future productions and making sure the availability of the pro-shot wouldn't compromise, say, a national tour. I'm not a producer and don't have the numbers and the research, but what I'd love to see happen is, the pro-shot gets a limited theatrical release to coincide with a national tour, and then gets released to streaming platforms when the tour is wrapped. (Of course, as an elder millennial who's genetically incapable of not being financially stressed, I don't care where or how it's released as long as I get those residual checks lol.)

As to your question of crowdfunding: as far as I understand it (and I'm not an entertainment lawyer so I likely have very incomplete information, so don't take my word at total face value): in order to crowdfund for a pro-shot, the producers would likely need to establish a new business entity and it would have to be a nonprofit entity so it could legally solicit donations from the public. Broadway shows are commercially produced, and each iteration of the commercially-produced production has its own business entity. When the show was in workshops and in Syracuse, the business entity was "Amigos in Ohio, LLC." The Broadway entity is "Amigos on Broadway, LLC." The only difference it makes on my end is the name that shows up on my bank statement when I get my direct deposit every week, but the difference it makes from a producer perspective is much more significant and it has a big effect on how productions are legally and ethically allowed to be funded, and again I'm not an entertainment lawyer so explaining what those differences are is beyond me.

I will say, however, Ken Davenport has been a real innovator when it comes to how shows can be produced--in 2010, he launched what eventually became the first crowdfunded Broadway musical with the Godspell revival. I know very little about how all of that actually works, but I do think something like that would be a boon to the industry in the year of our dark Majestic Theater 2024. And it would also give the fans a way to connect with the material and the business on a deeper and more personal level.

Meanwhile, if you want to learn more about how Broadway works from the producers' side, you should check out Sammy Lopez's Producing 101 course on The Business of Broadway. (I'm going to be in an upcoming class myself and it's all virtual, so maybe I'll see you there!)

[fashion-foxy]

Ok, Descendants fans, genuine question: Arent a majority of cast useless and could just be Ben and Harry with little to no change in the story? (I'm using them because that scene with Ben kidnapped on the boat and Harry fucking with him was peak dynamic. ) Like :

Mal : Leader of original VK group, sarcastic, and insecure,and acts as Isle figurehead; being the 'bad' and more negative to Ben's more positive and 'good'. Ben is ~16, and his parents are very closed-minded and see in blank and white. Ben being that young and having no one around him who shares his view of the world would (in my opinion make him relatively insecure). I don't think I really have to explain Harry fitting sarcastic. Harry could just as easily fit into being a figurehead to the Isle. I think he embodies the Isle a bit more because he has a much more free spirited personality and demonstrates a lot more how being on the Isle is "every man for himself"

Evie : Optimistic, friendly, smart business minded. Ben is, tying back in with the last statement, a very positive person. He will always see the good the good in everyone and everything and because of this he's a very friendly guy. The 'smart business mind' can totally also factor into running a kingdom. Considering every possibility and factoring what that would mean for you and your people.

Jay : Charming, Kleptomanic tendencies (it's a personality trait in the sims 4, I genuinely couldn't think of anything that wasn't already covered by 'charming') Harry has a scene where he flirts with 4 women in ~1 minute. He also has 'was in a situationship that ended horribly, and neither of them want to admit it ended or even happened' energy with everyone. He is like the definition of charming. I don't have to really explain Kleptomanic tendencies, but I think it also builds the 'knows what it takes to survive on the Isle' that I think would bring a lot more to the table than when Mal said that they should close the barrier for good and BEN (someone who has no reason to care about the Isle and only does because he genuinely wants to do the best thing for the people) was the one who advocates for the Isle. Harry would never turn his back on the Isle like that.

Carlos : quick-witted, and awkward has this played for laughs a couple times(I may be misinterpreting the situation because Dude being comic relief is not funny at all to me but I assume most things he says are supposed to be humorous) (Sidenote : Rest in peace Cameron Boyce.) This one isn't even really specific to Harry because basically all of the VK's and quick-witted and very good at thinking on their feet. (Growing up on the Isle will do that to a motherfucker) but I think Harry is probably the best at it. I mean, just take the exchange where he says that there's 20 minutes left to noon, and Ben corrects him. He doesn't get hostile he takes the situation and makes it into a joke and like it's part of him messing with Ben. Obviously the awkwardness is something that Ben possesses. The man is the human embodiment of a hurt puppy. If he's trying to be nice and friendly with someone and they are rude or ignore him, he just freezes. He's got nowhere to take the conversation, so he awkwardly laughs and walks away.

Uma : Pirate gang leader. I think that she and Mal have very similar personalities, and a lot of these points are going to be building on my talking points with Mal but I will bring up that Uma is a lot more stubborn and vengeful than Mal is/was. Harry and Ben aren't exactly that stubborn. What I would say is that if anything, Harry is more self-assured, and Ben just has very strong views of the world that he won't compromise on.

Gil : The most friendly dude, caring, little dumb sometimes, but he means well. Gil literally is just the Isle equivalent to Ben, in my opinion. Like they just share most of their traits.

So, how grossly did I oversimplify them? Are there more strong character moments in the book? What am I missing here?

[my-coven-is-claudia]

although i’m not a fan of himbo garroth and his mystreet characterisation in general,, i think it makes some sense. he had two totally different upbringing’s in mystreet and diaries which obviously lead him to being very different in both series which i don’t see people mentioning a lot. by no means do i think that garroth’s grossly oversimplified,, himbofied mystreet portrayal is the natural conclusion to him having a better childhood (or at least better than his childhood in diaries) but him being laidback and more bubbly makes sense! i think a better written mystreet!garroth would still be relaxed and excitable but still have diaries!garroth’s intelligence and depth. garroth unfortunately has always been a victim of not really having a cohesive characterisation outside of having beef with zane. he’s always been all over the place. but i do think that in mystreet he would have been very different from his diaries self. i guess the real question is whether he would’ve been a better person or not

[blindmagdalena]

Reading that previous ask about the person being curious but also finding Homelander creepy was really cool but lowkey as a big homelander fan he is mad creepy. But that’s apart of the appeal😭 there’s just something about him that seems off but its like so attractive!

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the uncanny by Freud but it’s basically something about Homelander is bordering on uncanny valley. But also he seems to be bordering in the territory of the abject by Kristeva because with the abject it’s a category that’s like body horror and gore and mothers (this is grossly oversimplified). But homelander tends to be a gorey character that also has a weird connection to mothers that easily walk into uncomfortable territory. But a part of Freud’s essay about the Uncanny and Kristeva’s essay about the abject is basically being like “why do people like these things in these categories”

Sorry I totally started rambling at the end and forgot my point😭 anyway as a homelander fan girl I can totally understand how he could be perceived as creepy or off putting to other people

love ur content btw queen

you bring up some really interesting points!!! I think you're absolutely right about the uncanny here. I see so many people talk about how Homelander (or even Antony Starr himself) triggers their fight or flight response. I've also seen people saying that he looks like he's wearing a mask of his own face or he's some kind of animated mannequin. which, to be fair, there was a season where his makeup was weird and shiny, and he seemed to have some eyeliner/mascara going on.

while I have mentioned before that I wouldn't want to meet AS because I find him a little unnerving, I obviously don't have this very visceral response to Homelander. however there IS a horror element at play that is extremely appealing to me. I LIKE how unsettling and alien he can be. i like horror in general! there is just something about Starr's acting that pulls it off beautifully. for some people, that seems to be something of a nightmare.

I honestly think this is why Homelander fans are generally so chill. it really is a lot like loving horror as a genre. you know it's not going to be everyone's thing, and that's okay, but it IS our thing, and we're loving it.

anyways, tysm darling!! 🖤

[aracaranelentari]

Fingolfin is my fave character so thank you for all the posts on him!! Can you tell me why you love him so much?

Happily I will try, but Anon you have asked a hard question! If there's anything I struggle to understand, it's the patterns and reasonings behind my own interests, which are often irrational and very inconsistent!

Well a few simpler reasons are: He's dauntless but also wise, ambitious but kind and cautious - he thinks before he acts (most of the time). He has ice symbolism to parallel Fëanor's fire, which I think is super cool. I think he's a very good king! His people love him, and he seems to listen to his people and often takes council with others, not relying on his own wisdom only. An underrated reason to love Fingolfin is that he's half Vanyar, which is potential for interesting interpretations for his character, such as my personal theories that he's a dancer and is Ingwë's favorite nephew.

I also love characters who have a lot of inner turmoil and battle with themselves constantly, and both Maedhros and Fingolfin I think fit this bill pretty well, though in Maedhros it's more obvious. Fingolfin is quite similar to his brother Fëanor in quite a few ways, and to me it seems like throughout the narrative he tries hard to suppress the more explosive aspects of himself, and put his people's needs before himself. He's jealous of Fëanor but tries to make peace with him anyways, he holds the Fëanorians accomplices of their father but accepts Maedhros' repentance and makes peace with them, he's proud of his people's strength and wants to attack Angband, but won't force his people to do what they don't want to. He's really quite the respectful guy and good diplomat, despite his own pride!

Obviously he goes apeshit at the end of the Dagor Bragollach, and his duel is incredibly fascinating to talk about by itself, another reason I love him. Fëanor once said "Such hurt at the least will I do to the Foe of the Valar that even the mighty in the Ring of Doom shall wonder to hear it", and there's only one among the Ñoldor who accomplished this. If Fëanor's main two reasons for the Flight were 1) get the Silmarils back, and 2) get revenge on Morgoth, didn't Maedhros technically fulfill part of the first reason, and Fingolfin fulfill the second?

There are also more meta reasons why I'm such a Fingolfin stan. I think Fingolfin is overlooked and/or oversimplified by a lot of the fandom, and grossly mischaracterized by much of the rest of it. I might be exaggerating a bit, especially when characterizing Silmarillion characters is so difficult, and will be inconsistent by the nature of the source material not going in-depth with their personalities. My interpretation of Fingolfin will not be the same as someone else who has read the same material, and because he's my favorite character, my interpretation may be biased in favor of him being a compelling individual. Still, a lot of the Fingolfin takes I see, especially from annoying dude-bros and people who villainize him to try to justify Fëanor, are very frustrating to me. All this to say that I love my Fingolfin, but dislike some of the other Fingolfins I see (not all of them! There are plenty of other wonderful Fingolfins), and I think quite a bit of my intense love for him comes from a place of defying the interpretations I dislike. I don't know if that made sense, or was a satisfactory answer to your ask, but I tried my best!

[ofstormsandfire]

do u have any zelpha thoughts

I have many zelpha thoughts! They're sadly a little harder to pin down and write about than the revalink thoughts, but by god do they exist. In many ways, they're very similar to each other—both are princesses with inherited(?) magical power, both play an important role in the fight against Calamity Ganon—but in many others, they very much aren't. Rhoam, of course, is the guy who pushed his daughter so hard away from her interests that he very well might have made it harder to unlock her sealing powers and doomed himself in the process, because OH YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING FUN EVER. Sure, he regretted that in the end if you look at his diary, but—and this is crucial—Zelda had no way of knowing that.

And then we have Dorephan, who didn't want his daughter to pilot a Divine Beast at all because he was afraid (justifiably, in Breath of the Wild) that it would get her killed. I won't get into my feelings regarding Age of Calamity here, but while a lot of it is obviously not remotely canon to what happened in BOTW, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that Mipha promised a similar thing, that she would come back (a promise that she couldn't keep, because she died) in that timeline.

I think that Zelda would try very, very hard not to be bitter about that, given that Mipha is literally one of the nicest people she's ever met—but she would be bitter, regardless of how well she hid it.

Also very possible that, given that we never see a hint of Mipha's mother in the picture, she's dead too? So. More parallels.

(...I really, really should write more of my totk zelpha fixit. Because. God. It lets me delve into those things, and also the fact that both of them are so very traumatized and so very young.)

I'm grossly oversimplifying a lot of things here, sorry, but. Tl;dr yes I have zelpha thoughts and I wish there was more fic for them that didn't just have them as the B pairing to revalink. Because I love revalink too, don't get me wrong! But I'd love to see more lesbians. The world can always use more lesbians.

Strictly speaking, sapphics would be a better term given that Mipha is well-established to canonically have a crush on Link, and Zelda gives me bisexual vibes, but. Semantics.

Thanks for the ask!

[streatfeild]

Hello, horny actress anon here:

Thank you so much for your affirming words, and I mean it, really. Don’t know how, but it never occurred to me that I deem actors sexy because they’re… pure and unapologetic in their emotions. It makes perfect sense. It’s all I want in a person, well, grossly oversimplified.

As for how I want to proceed with my Lady of the Sacred Stage…

…I don’t know. I'd like to ask her out, really. Even if it’s just a one-time-thing. But I don’t think she’d be interested, neither in the gender I present as nor in… well, me. I‘m not even a qualified actress yet. I‘m just… there. And weird as hell. And unsettling. And so very, very afraid.

It's funny though. When I came to the theatre I now work at around half a year ago for 23/24, I promised myself to finally get laid, preferably via a fellow theater person. And I really want it to be her, like a band-aid. But a nice one, yknow?

I don’t know. Maybe I can jump over my own shadow and ask her out. Maybe I can’t.

Maybe I'll come along and pay you a visit to ask you out! No, sorry. That was a tasteless joke.

welcome back! and sorry for my late reply, life is… a Lot™ right now 😅

There’s this nice saying in the theatre world, "never fuck the company", and while i mostly agree with it, i didn’t exactly comply lol. (i fucked the company 4 times plus 1 where we didn’t go any further than making out while Feelings were involved. all those times i got lucky bc my partners were chill when we ended it (i mean. the first was an f+ where i was madly in love and heartbroken when he got a job at another theatre, then there were 2 ONSs, the last one in january and we basically don’t talk about it or acknowledge that it happened… 1 relationship but we weren’t in the same productions so it was fine when we broke up). anyway, i have witnessed a lot of drama when other people tried and it didn’t work out and honestly, that drama was exhausting for everyone around.)

what i‘m saying is, maybe spend some time together first, just to talk, have a glass of wine or whatever, figure out if - should things go wrong - it‘s worth it. or if she‘s chill, you know.

that sounds really pessimistic and obviously i know neither of you so i‘m not the one to judge the situation, but working together can be weird if you have A Thing. (also if it‘s a good thing, btw. it can be very distracting 😅)

or you come along and we‘ll have a glass of wine, or whatever :“)

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form: Follow Up to Nutrition

This is a follow up to a previous ask. 

Oh boy. The diet question. Actually, diets are often be super important for my plotlines. (Also a lot of this is going to be for myself too, readers are second. A deep dive into nutrition is important for me.)

Like, surviving on strange lands. My characters of all species (and there's a lot more that are going to be background) obviously need to find food. They all need nutrition that suits their own needs.  What if one character actually prefers to die if they are a vegetarian and there's only meat. But look, the opposite way, like humans, we can survive as vegetarians or we can eat meat. How about carnivores that can NOT survive on vegetables and herbivores that can not surivive on meat. OR what about some omnivores that, can survive one way, but might have a deficiency. How severe might that deficiency be. So, some storylines might be trade offs. Do you give the only vegetables to herbivores, what if in order for an omnivore to be healthy they need the vegetable, or they might possibly have to leave the person somewhere, or be unable to contribute as a group if deficiency takes their toll on them but they might get better and survive? So due to lack of vegetable, will they actually let a herbivore die/be underfed in order to let the omnivore survive but may be a bit sick especally when there are so many reasons why they should keep someone. Maybe the omnivore has better skills they need?

Even saying herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, is just as an example of required nutrients, so that could be replaced with so much more. Like seriously, they're going to need to decide if there's anyone that is just simply nope, they'll never survive. Like some random koala got lost in the north pole. Yeah.. nope.

Other parts of my story may be full of food trade between species. Again, plotlines of lack of resources but another species may have what they need. Definitely going to need to figure out what each needs to survive on and whether there are any competing needs. And then there's always the case of just simple travel to a new place. They're going to need to find food that suits them, figure out what they can have, what they can not have and with different species that will be different. So yeah, maybe they ate a strange food because it seemed suitable. But on further questioning or examination, actually, it's not suitable because of different food needs you couldn't get all requirements out there. When sometimes you don't realise you had to ask something because it's not very known. (I'm not sure I explained this last bit quickly but I saw fiction that did just this but I found it a random plug in just to give drama - that is what I meant when I said making up whatever)

Wootzel: I would strongly suggest taking a look at the link about pigeon diets from my last response if you haven’t already. Apologies if you have! I just wasn't sure, based on how you responded. 

Even with all the detail, we’re still just slightly confused about what you’re asking. My best guess currently is that you don’t have much background knowledge about how nutrition works, so here’s a really basic rundown by someone who does not study nutrition seriously, so readers, please bear with me if anything I say is wrong or grossly oversimplified. 

Almost every animal species on Earth requires nutrients that can be split into just a few categories, if we’re simplifying. 

Building blocks for our bodies: the stuff we physically need to create more cells and tissues. This is mainly proteins! You could also consider calcium to be in this category for those with skeletons. (Again, this is a heavy oversimplification. LOTS of stuff goes into our physical bodies and sticks around. But it’s much more protein than anything else).

Fuel: This primarily takes the form of sugars for us earthlings. Carbohydrates are complex sugars, and this is where a lot of human energy comes from. Cellulose is an absurdly long chain of simple sugars, which humans can’t digest but other animals (herbivores, mostly) have special digestive systems for. Fats are kinda just another form of sugars; they’re a little harder for the body to use than carbohydrates, but very energy-dense, so many species use fat as storage for extra energy. Carbs and simple sugars aren’t usually used the same way by bodies as fats, but they aren’t unrelated either; they use similar building blocks.

Micronutrients: These are not used in significant proportion to create structures in the body, but are important for metabolic processes or to replenish essential nutrients on a smaller scale. Animals use the sodium-potassium pump to move nutrients across cell membranes, and need those in various quantities to keep their bodies working. 

Some species need a certain sort of compound or protein in their bodies and are able to make it if they consume the building blocks. Some can’t make enough, or can’t make a specific molecule at all, and therefore must consume it to survive. An example: Humans can create taurine in our bodies, given adequate amounts of the building blocks (amino acids, which are the components of proteins). Domestic cats can only make very little taurine; their usual diet of prey is rich in taurine already, so why should they need to synthesize it? On the other side, cats can synthesize vitamin C, but humans can’t. We eat plenty of fruits and get vitamin C from them, so our bodies lost the ability to synthesize it. 

So, every one of your species needs to consume building blocks/protein, fuel, and micronutrients (or at least, the components of those micronutrients). In what quantities? If the diet is protein-poor, like that of a grazer, the animal will need to consume a lot of material in order to get enough protein. Grazing also requires being able to break down cellulose, since most grasses and plants tie their sugars up in long strings that many species can’t digest. 

As I mentioned before, avoidance of toxins is also going to play a huge part in what these species can or can’t eat. Many plant species on earth have evolved SOME kind of chemical or physical deterrent that makes them either unappetizing or straight up dangerous to species that would eat them. In turn, species have evolved to ignore those toxins. There are so many toxins out there that I would hazard a guess that there are more plant species that are toxic to at least one animal than there are plant species that survive simply by growing faster than they can be eaten. 

And within every single one of these nutrients… there’s a range. Every animal needs some amount of protein, but there’s a lower and upper limit to consume while still being healthy. There are also variable periods a species can spend without a nutrient without suffering. Growing, or building muscle, requires more protein, and a lot of activity needs more fuel. Some body processes will fly out of wack or shut down when deprived of their essential micronutrients.

This is about as far as my knowledge extends, so from here you’ll have to research deeper in order to get to your deep dive level. “Bioavailability” is a word that will be your friend if you haven’t been using it already. Humans could munch on grass all day long, and even though grass is made of LOTS of sugars, they are not bioavailable to humans because we can’t break apart cellulose in order to use those sugars. A human eating lots of grass would get sick because grass is a crap source of fuel for us. A cow who dined on chicken for a week would get sick because the gut microbes of cattle are good at consuming grass, and the body would struggle to use the resources in meat. (There are probably a lot of reasons for this. I don’t know most of them).

Also, look at detailed nutrition requirements for different kinds of domestic species. Look up “Essential nutrients for [animal]” and then read about why they need those things. As you learn more about this and pick up on the patterns, you’ll gain the understanding needed to decide which requirements you’d like your fictional species to have. 

Tex: I think Wootzel has answered quite a few points in your ask, so I’m going to putter about a bit, starting with breaking down one of your paragraphs and giving line-by-line feedback on it:

“Like, surviving on strange lands. My characters of all species (and there's a lot more that are going to be background) obviously need to find food. They all need nutrition that suits their own needs.”

It’s good to know in retrospect that you intended a multiplicity of species, as that does change the scope a bit, especially the note about their nutritional needs being different - this implies to me that there’s species of different ancestors (like you see in a lot of sci-fi, humans being primate ancestors, another being a lizard ancestor, etc, etc).

How did this group of individuals (I’m assuming it’s a group of individuals) get on this strange land to begin with? Were they already traveling, and this was an unintended destination? Or were they not intending to travel at all, and their arrival at this “strange land” a surprise for them? If the former, being already traveling, did they already have food stored on hand?

“What if one character actually prefers to die if they are a vegetarian and there's only meat.”

I would like to make a small note that “vegetarian” (Wikipedia) and “vegan” (Wikipedia) diets mean different things from each other, and that such diets vary by culture (Wikipedia).

If you mean “vegetarian” as in “diet based on the refusal of meat, dairy, and egg products”, then - at least for a primarily Western context, “vegan” or another, more specific term than “vegetarian” might better apply to that character.

“But look, the opposite way, like humans, we can survive as vegetarians or we can eat meat.”

I’m going to provide two links here that are excellent references for the human diet and human nutritional needs

Human § Diet - Wikipedia

Human nutrition - Wikipedia

“How about carnivores that can NOT survive on vegetables and herbivores that can not surivive on meat.”

This is a bit of a rectangle vs square argument - herbivores generally have a physiology unsuitable to digesting meat and other animal products, whereas carnivores can sometimes digest plant products (i.e. cats eating grass for digestion, versus cows whose digestive system gets upset if they eat something other than plants).

As a note, the animal kingdom in particular is not so quickly nor easily categorized into two distinct groups of diet. What the stereotypical definition is of a “carnivore” is more closely aligned to that of an “obligate carnivore”, as in “obliged to eat meat” due to their physiology.

Opportunistic carnivores, on the other hand, are those animals that usually do not require the eating of meat, but can if their diet is restricted based upon resource availability, such as the Galapagos land iguana (Wikipedia), Liometopum apiculatum (a type of ant, Wikipedia), 

“OR what about some omnivores that, can survive one way, but might have a deficiency. How severe might that deficiency be.”

Here’s some more links:

Herbivore - Wikipedia

Hypocarnivore - Wikipedia

Mesocarnivore - Wikipedia

Hypercarnivore - Wikipedia

Scavenger - Wikipedia

List of feeding behaviours - Wikipedia

Consumer–resource interactions - Wikipedia

List of abnormal behaviours in animals - Wikipedia

Ingestive behaviors - Wikipedia

“So, some storylines might be trade offs. Do you give the only vegetables to herbivores, what if in order for an omnivore to be healthy they need the vegetable, or they might possibly have to leave the person somewhere, or be unable to contribute as a group if deficiency takes their toll on them but they might get better and survive?”

This is plot, and under very technical terms not our wheelhouse. On a worldbuilding note, this is psychological rather than physiological question, and comes down to each individual’s culture and history to see how they react to starvation. I’ll list a few things to read for that context:

Starvation - Wikipedia

Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 - Wikipedia

“So due to lack of vegetable, will they actually let a herbivore die/be underfed in order to let the omnivore survive but may be a bit sick especally when there are so many reasons why they should keep someone.”

This… hmm, seems to be coming from the tautology of “survival of the fittest” (Wikipedia), and its correlating Social Darwinism (Wikipedia), which is a can of worms to debate with. It’s a distressingly prevalent idea that one must survive by putting down others, and while thematically and situationally may sometimes be the case (thrillers are a popular genre), survival in many genres of story-telling requires a cast of larger than one in order for group starvation to be an issue.

“Maybe the omnivore has better skills they need?"

Plot-wise, if the character you’ve designated as the omnivore has some qualities that the others in its group have agreed-upon as having merit toward survival (i.e. “worth saving”/”worth living”), then that’s something you would need to write in.

Which does bring me to an additional question - there seems to be an underlying reason as to why your characters are debating in the first place who gets what food. It seems like there wasn’t already a protocol in place for disasters like this (food rationing protocols, preserved foods already available, plans for reuniting with civilization, hunting/foraging/basic agriculture, etc), or is this a subject that was looked over in your worldbuilding?

[jinxpologist]

@pluralphilza okay so first of all it’s not a test and no test can capture your type with 100% accuracy you kind of have to figure it out on ur own. but tests can point u in the general direction

the enneagram is a personality system of nine personality types, each assigned a number. the numbers don’t mean shit except showing the relation of types. so like 9 isn’t better than 1 and vice versa.

for that post specifically i was talking about my type (e4, e standing for enneagram just to make it clear im discussing a personality type) and how the function of envy works with 4s.

envy is the 4s biggest trait according to some. we consider ourselves deeply lacking and always missing something that prevents us from being happy and whole. all around we tend to be a bit miserable when unhealthy personality wise and blame this on external factors.

4s mostly dislike people we envy. the envy usually isn’t in something like status or material goods (although that can be the case). more often for me, envy causes problems when it’s someone who’s of my integration type.

an integration type is another enneagram type that you become more like when you’re happy and healthy. as a 4, i become more like a 2 when unhealthy and more like a 1 when healthy. so, i personally tend to envy and irrationally dislike 1s at times.

obviously this isn’t a good thing and it’s also not a core part of my personality that can’t be changed. personal growth is a big part of the enneagram and that’s an unhealthy trait im describing.

in grossly oversimplified terms, a 1 is someone who is very morally righteous at times. so, they can overcorrect, or choose to be aggressively straight laced in what they say and do, to the point a 4 might sometimes feel intimidated and/or indirectly being called out as morally inferior. this can trigger envy, which can then trigger anger.

overall annoying as fuck to get upset and intimidated by random ass people just living their lives and it’s also really embarrassing, which just goes back and triggers the typical 4 self loathing again, making a 4 unhealthier and more likely to be angry when envious, and etc etc

so yeah that’s the gist of it lol

[cosmik-homo]

Awesome post analyzing Two and what makes him tick! Just curious, at one point you mention that Two basically says "You can not have bad thoughts if you choose to not have bad thoughts and just keep yourself extremely distracted at all times" - what serial/quote are you referring to?

It's a - partially grossly oversimplified- take on his speech to Victoria in tomb of the cybermen:

"I have to really want to, to bring them back in front of my eyes. The rest of the time they - they sleep in my mind, and I forget. And so will you. Oh yes, you will. You'll find there's so much else to think about, to remember. Our lives are different to anybody else's. That's the exciting thing! There's nobody in the universe can do what we're doing."

I am sometimes, I feel, overly critical and bitter w/ that quote, a sort of Knee Jerk response to what I deem it's over-popularity in the fandom, but it's like. I don't actually think it's a bad quote and I don't actually think it's entirely maladaptive or incorrect in how it proposes to handle grief and trauma- I just think it's not meant to be read or treated as an unquestioned Inspirational Nugget Of Wisdom, but as a character moment where the Doctor describes his experiences and his take on growing up/ moving on / missing your family.

The main tragedy of Victoria Waterfield in my opinion is that as much as the Doctor loves her and cares for her and she for him, (and Jamie. on both of these), he's obviously trying to raise her within his way of life and guide her by his experience, and as much as both sides try it. Isn't a good fit. Some people can handle and enjoy the hectic danger of life with the Doctor and some don't, and it's not even that this is uniquely determined by her circumstances of demographic and background- compare first to Vicki and then to Tegan.

Anyways, back to the Second Doctor: If you take a look at the full context of the quote, the part before it, He straight up says,

DOCTOR: You miss him very much, don't you? VICTORIA: It's only when I close my eyes. I can still see him standing there, before those horrible Dalek creatures came to the house. He was a very kind man, I shall never forget him. Never. DOCTOR: No, of course you won't. But, you know, the memory of him won't always be a sad one. VICTORIA: I think it will. You can't understand, being so ancient. [...]

Adding those two parts together, you get: Of course you can't undo what hard things have done to your brain. But you "Will"- like a parent, he puts his experience as a sort of law of reality- find that when you focus outwardly on what you have going on in your life and do as much possible, find many other things to think about, you can avoid the bad thoughts, and eventually distance the pain from you that you can think of those times and events without Bad. Again. Not an untrue or unhealthy message. But very much pointing out how he thinks and operates, and how he handles things, and the degree to which he finds them a universal coping tool

[jkl-fff]

Barbie Movie Ramblings (Part 1)

Watched it yesterday and *loved* it. It was one of the most silly, snappy, stylish, and still smart movies I've seen in a long time, and thus I've got a lot of synapses shooting off. Going to let some of them ricochet around Tumblr instead of just inside my skull. Enjoy! Feel free to add on!

Okay ... Where to even start?

Firstly, Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling both deserve an Oscar for the depth and breadth of their acting range on display in this film, Greta Gerwig for the masterful execution of her directorial vision. And whoever wrote the casting credits deserves death for how unhelpful they are. Practically everyone is either just "Barbie" or "Ken", so how am I supposed to reference them easily here? Gods damn it, at least give them their titles, like "President Barbie" or "Journalist Barbie"!

I'm still giggling at lines like "Oh! The Supreme Court!" for the Miss Universe billboard, or Ken's confession "When I found out patriarchy wasn’t about horses, I lost interest," or Ruth Handler's ghost's self-deprecating boast "I am Mattel. At least, until the IRS got to me." I mean it in the most positive way imaginable when I say this movie was like a cohesive feverdream, like a frenetic session of children playing yet with an internally logical plot.

****

Okay, now for the more intellectual thoughts.

Apparently, a lot of people are arguing about whether or not this is really a good Feminist Movie(TM), whether or not it's a movie for Boys(TM), if it's anti-men, if it's just one big commercial for Mattel products, etc.

For that last one, yeah, of course it's selling Mattel products. But grow up, because it's not *just* a commercial. Much like "The Lego Movie" is selling legos AND ALSO a heartfelt story and a fascinating work of artistic performance in its own right. "Barbie" is a text worthy of analysis beyond "it's one big commercial", and part of how intellectually rich it is comes from the very fact that it engages with its own tangled roots in capitalist consumption.

As for whether or not it's for Boys(TM)--or for anyone at all, for that matter--I admit I've always thought such considerations were kinda stupid. Not everything is meant for everyone, obviously, nor should everything even try to be. But, by that same token, anything can be for anyone. People are not static and thus neither are audiences.

The idea of a Target Audience can be helpful, sometimes, but I think it's both grossly oversimplified and overextended nowadays (because capitalism and marketing). We need to remember, not everyone in a Target Audience will resonate with a given story, not everyone outside a Target Audience won't resonate with a story, and that that can change for individuals depending on ... heck, even what kinda day they're having. I loved this movie, but I probably wouldn't want to watch it on a day when I'm feeling really depressed. Maybe the producers and executives didn't market it with Boys(TM) in mind, but boys absolutely can and should watch "Barbie". It's a fun movie, and they should be allowed to enjoy it, too. And, more importantly, learn from it.

Is it anti-men? Pff! No. And only idiot conservatives would even think that's a worthwhile question worth asking.

As for if it's *really* a *good* Feminist Movie(TM) ... I think anyone asking this particular question is forgetting how complex and nuanced Feminism can be. Indeed, Feminism isn't really a single thing--it's not a unified monolith--but rather a bunch of connected and sometimes conflicting schools of thought, philosophies, political stances, and so on. In general, it really would be more accurate to say Feminisms (plural) than Feminism (singular). Giving a hard no, therefore, I reckon is insisting that it can't be Good Feminism(TM) because it doesn't fit someone's too narrow idea of what Real Feminism(TM) is/should be. Giving a hard yes is probably falling into the same trap.

Put another way, Feminism is a lot like Jewishness. It isn't really about finding The Absolute Answer(TM) to a question, but about the process of thinking and debating by which you come to a possibly impermanent answer.

To give some examples from the movie: Does the Barbie doll actually empower little girls? She shows them they can aspire to be more than just mothers, that they can be anyone and do anything ... But she also reifies this idea that women must look beautiful and be perfectly accessorized while doing it. It's not "yes or no", but "yes and no". Is the narrator's fourth-wall-breaking line "Note to film makers: Margot Robbie is not the right person to cast to make this point." (when Barbie is having a crisis about being inadequate, not being pretty enough or smart enough, etc.) one that undercuts or underlines the movie's emotional climax? It interrupts the flow of the dialogue and suggests that a woman's self-perception is less important than how others perceive her ... But it reminds us that she's not an everywoman, but rather an actress playing a specific doll in a fictional story, and this is a self-aware performance about the need to be self-aware. Not "yes or no" but "yes and no". It ends with Barbie being excited for a gynecology appointment. What the heck? On the one hand, it echoes the reality and physicality she now inhabits. She's real and alive, so she has a body with reproductive organs thus feminine health concerns that are being acknowledged in a way that is open and not shamed. She's no longer plastic and high-heeled and perfect, and thus will have blemishes and cellulite and flat feet, and that's wonderful ... But it also suggests the idea that the realness of womanhood is physical and medical and biological--suggests that it's situated not in her soul but in her body, not in who she is but what she has in her pants. Not "yes or no" but "yes and no".

Ironically, if anything, it might be a good Feminist Movie(TM) specifically because it doesn't try to give us simple, definitive answers about if the Barbie doll and "Barbie" itself are feminist icons. Feminisms are too complex and nuanced to give simple, definitive answers.

I've got one more thought (or string of thoughts) in me about this movie, I reckon. About how it's campy and doing nonstop drag (the Barbies are doing over-the-top femininity, the Ken's over-the-top masculinity, and even the Real World is doing over-the-top reality and grittiness ... except for the Mattel headquarters) and deconstructing itself, and how all that is foundational to its message. But this post has already gone on for too long than I originally anticipated. So I'll give voice to that idea in a bit.

[flamedoesart]

hey you're not a bad person for wanting to give cc's the benefit of the doubt. was the finale disappointing? yes. but also realistically speaking, I seriously don't think cc!tommy straight up decided "yeah fuck abuse victims" with his ending. I also don't think he had any malicious intent with that ending, and if anything it's just a case of him being oblivious to the implications. he's an 18 year old who loves marvel. I don't think he's over here analyzing things as critically as a lot of us do.

and even ignoring whatever cc!tommy's intent was, you're not a bad person for just?? enjoying media? all media is flawed. especially when it's a minecraft roleplay server made by a group of young adults with little to no experience in writing. I hate this idea of people's personal morality being tied in with the content they enjoy. you can look at the positives of the ending and that doesn't make you a terrible person. you literally just enjoy a minecraft roleplay. that's not a reflection of your morality whatsoever.

thank you nonny, i just.

sometimes the constant negativity this fandom exudes wears me down, bc whenever shit like this happens people tend to look at these cc's in the most bad faith way imaginable and assume they were Purposefully trying to harm their fans, which is oftentimes not the case.

it has never been a habit of mine to dehumanize these ccs and i sure as shit won't start now. the concept that they never gave a single shit about the story is grossly oversimplifying the situation, in my opinion. we don't know these people. that's the crux of this issue. we don't know them, and thus we cannot assume that they fumble their writing on purpose.

let me make it clear that it's absolutely okay to be angry. it's okay to feel upset and be hurt by the finale. my point is to not let those feelings drive you.

i easily forgive bc i know i am also not an experienced writer, and i most certainly don't know what it feels like to have millions of eyes on me while I'm working in a collaborative project with 20+ people. obviously none of that excuses these cc's, but you can simultaneously acknowledge that the ending sucked and the implications were Not Great while also understanding that these people are Human and do care about this story, but just suffer from a lack of research and are most likely ignorant.

idk if my response helps at all, but yeah.