#other interesting historical people/periods

[jeannereames]

Hello Dr. Reames! Thank you so much for all the great answers here on tumblr! If you don’t mind sharing, could you tell us what other historical periods/figures you like, outside your area of specialty? Those that you don’t work with, but like to read about

There are several other ancient figures who intrigue me, but those are still in my wheelhouse. Ergo, I’ll focus on a couple of people/eras that are not in the ancient (Eurasian) world.

First, and this is a personal (family) interest: Mihshihkinaáhkwa, or Little Turtle. His name actually means ‘Painted Terrapin’ but apparently the French can’t handle complexity. He’s the best American Indian general you’ve never heard of before.

He was war chief (eteesiah) and civil chief (akima) of the Myaamia (Miami) Indians, architect of St. Clair’s Defeat/Battle of the Wabashiki, the biggest loss (proportionally) the US army ever suffered (anywhere). Later, he agreed to peace with the US, as he didn’t think the nation could continue to block American expansion west. Americans were a bit like Rome: just kept coming back, even if you beat them the first time.

Later, he refused to support Tecumseh’s war, in part because of the Treaty of Greenville, but he didn’t trust their British allies or Tecumseh’s brother, The Prophet—but also (quite possibly) for ego reasons. He wasn’t in charge. Ha. It’s an interesting “What if?” to me—what if the Great Lakes tribes had all united to form a blockade, instead of breaking down into old factions? My mother’s family (Brouillettes and Richardvilles) are related (collaterally) to Mihshihkinaáhkwa via his sister.

I’m also fascinated by two ancient American groups. One is Teotihuacan (same area the Aztecs and Toltecs would control later). The other is Cohokia, on the Illinois side of the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, where St. Louis is today (on the Missouri side). Cahokia is absolutely fascinating. I teach both these cultures (along with the Maya, Snake Town and the SW cultures) in World History, so I know a little about them. I’ve been to Cahokia several times (it’s North America’s “Rome,” in terms of size and scope of trade control), and when it collapsed, at least some of the people in the area stayed and united with the Myaamia and Illiniwek peoples arriving later from the Ohio River Valley area. One of the tribes of the Illiniwek was, in fact, called the Cahokia. (Illiniwek are cousins to the Myaamia. Illinois is derived from Illiniwe.)

I also enjoy the history of some cities, such as New Orleans, Savannah—and Omaha, for that matter. When I moved here, I had no idea what an interesting history this place had.

Last, one of my very first attempts to write historical fiction, back when I was in high school and editor of the literary magazine there, involved the Marquis de Lafayette. It was a very cheesy, quasi-self-insert about a girl who wanted to fight in the Revolution, so disguised herself as a boy. She wound up an attaché to Lafayette. I don’t even remember now how it ended (probably in a love story), but I’d researched him for a school project, then wrote the story. It won first prize! But you have to understand the competition—a bunch of other high school kids. LOL

I haven’t studied Lafayette since, but admit I got a kick out of it when he popped up in the musical, Hamilton.

[uncanny-tranny]

Something kind of funny I never anticipated about crocheting with longer hair was pulling out a piece of my own hair out of my project that I somehow crocheted into it

[the-busy-ghost]

There are many reasons my interests are more geared towards mediaeval Scotland than mediaeval England, but at least one of them has to be the fact that I am completely incapable of Being Normal about the Lion in Winter and Shakespeare's second tetralogy.

[navree]

i am going to shoot the domina showrunners in the head i have had enough

[tossawary]

One of my personal nitpicks for historical fantasy is a lack of servants, staff, subordinates, and... idk... subjects? Like, their absence is not... a total dealbreaker for me, depending on the situations the characters are in and whether or not I can just assume that other people are there in the background... but so many of the protagonists in historical fantasy stuff are higher-ranking (very often royalty), and/or have busy jobs, and/or have enormous houses that would necessitate having at least part-time staff.

Like, girl, you should have a maid! WHERE is your chaperone?! WHO is driving this carriage?! Where are your footmen? Are you trying to imply that a WEALTHY DUCHESS is taking a CAB?! You know that you probably have tenants, right? Where is your steward?! Where is your lawyer? Your accountant?! (Like, yeah, you're not going to have your lawyer living in your house, but you HAVE one, right???)

Or, man, you're supposed to be a military commander and you don't even have a single secretary?! Where is your SQUIRE?! (In the spirit of historical fiction, I am jumping wildly across time periods with every sentence here.) Man, I know you aren't looking after your own boots. Where are your GUARDS?! Who set up this tent for you?! Who is looking after your horse?! Who is making and carrying the incredibly valuable maps people are recklessly stabbing daggers into?!

SOMEONE has to be scrubbing these floors and delivering the mail and cooking the meals and doing laundry, and they're probably all DIFFERENT people! My dentist has at least three different receptionists and we can't even get ONE for our court wizard here? A sorcerer's apprentice to take notes? Someone like Sherlock Holmes could get away with just having a housekeeper and taking taxis, sure, but your character is supposed to be a KING?! Why is he answering his own front door? He's going to get assassinated. His SERVANTS should have SERVANTS.

Like, yes, I understand that a lot of servants in certain places at certain times were supposed to make their labor invisible, but there have always been servants who still had to interact directly with the masters of the house?! Yeah, there are potentially really messy ethics here, class divisions are bullshit, but I don't think that completely ignoring the reality that humans have ALWAYS been doing work for other humans is better than just including some well-paid and well-treated servants and employees? Because a complete absence of them, especially where logically for the worldbuilding there MUST be servants (and probably exploited servants, or worse, for some particular worldbuilds to work), often makes me think that your main characters just don't care enough to notice the "lower class" people or know their names.

Also, even Frodo Baggins had a gardener and Samwise Gamgee might be the best damn character in the story?! Sam saved the world?! Servants are PEOPLE. Servants are often the funniest and most interesting characters, tbh, with the most to say about a society and its workings (yes, Discworld is a very good book series, highly recommend), and also the joke of some romantic scene being carefully orchestrated by a stage crew of servants frantically diving into bushes to stay out of sight never gets old to me. Teamwork makes the dream work!

I don't want to gatekeep historical fiction, especially not historical fantasy, because the worlds don't necessarily have to conform to our own and may have magic and characters are often in very unique circumstances, but... sometimes I pick up a story and it's like... "Author, please tell me that you know there is a difference between a butler and a valet?!"

[gael-garcia]

PALESTINE FILM INDEX

Palestine Film Index is a growing list of films from and about Palestine and the Palestinian struggle for liberation, made by Palestinians and those in solidarity with them. The index starts with films from the revolutionary period (68 - 82) made by the militant filmmakers of the Palestine Film Unit and their allies, and extends through a multitude of voices to the present day. It is by no means a complete or exhaustive representation of the vast universe that is Palestinian cinema, but is only a small fragmentary list that we hope nontheless can be used as an instrument of study & solidarity. As tools of knowledge against zionist propaganda and towards Palestinian liberation.

The century long war against Palestinians by the zionist project is one waged not only militarily but also culturally. The act of filmmaking, preservation, and distribution becomes an act against this attempted cultural erasure of ethnic cleansing. The power inherent in this form as a weapon against the genocidal project of zionism is evidenced in the ways it has been historically & currently targeted by the occupation forces: from the looting & stealing of the Palestine Cinema Institute archives during the siege of Beirut in 1982, through the long history of targeted assassinations of Palestinian filmmakers, journalists, artists, & writers (from PFU founder Hani Jawharieh, to Ghassan Kanafani, Shireen Abu Akleh, Refaat Alareer, and the over 100 journalists killed in the currently ongoing war on Gaza).

It is in this spirit of the use of film and culture as a way of focusing & transmitting information & knowledge that we hope this list can be used as one in an assortment of educational tools against hasbara (a coordinated and intricate system of zionist propaganda, media manipulation, & social engineering, etc) and all forms of propaganda that is weaponized against the Palestinian people. Zionist media & its collaborators remain one of the most effective fronts of the war, used to manufacture consent through deeply ingrained psychological manipulation of the general public agency. Critical and autonomous thought must be used as a tool of dismantling these frameworks. In this realm, film can play a vital roll in your toolkit/arsenal. Film must be understood as one front of the greater resistance. We hope in some small way we can help to distribute these manifestations of Palestinian life and the struggle towards liberation.

This list began as small aggregation to share among friends and comrades in 2021 and has since expanded to the current and growing form (it is added to almost every day). We have links for through which each film can be viewed along with descriptions, details such as run time, year, language, etc. We also have a supplemental list of related materials (texts, audio, supplemental video) that is small but growing. We have added information on contacts for distributors and filmmakers of each film in order to help people or groups who are interested in using this list to organize public screenings of these films. The makers of this list do not control the rights to these films and we strongly urge those interested in screening the works to get in touch with the filmmaker or distributors before doing so. This list was made with best intentions in mind, and in most cases with permission of filmmaker or through a publically available link, but if any film has mistakenly been added without the permission of a filmmaker involved and you would like us to remove it, or conversely if you are a filmmaker not included who would like your film to be added, or for any other thoughts, suggestions, additions, subtractions, complaints or concerns, please contact us at palestinefilmindex@gmail.com. No one involved in this list is doing it as a part of any organization, foundation or non-profit and we are not being paid to do this, it is merely a labor of love and solidarity. From the river to the sea, Palestine

[dailyhatsune]

miku as my babaylan oc who is trans

babaylan research dump (mostly from memory so it’s gonna be pretty distilled):

babaylans are the lead shamans of indigenous filipino tribes (mostly northside, the luzon and visayas area, rip mindanao) that are responsible for practically every spiritual aspect of the community. only women were allowed to be babaylans, since, according to local mythos, women had more affinity to the spiritual realm.

however, what i find notable about babaylans is that their requirements also include transgender women! one does not simply choose to become a babaylan, instead, she has to train under a senior and go through a ritual before the anito (local spirits) deemed her worthy of representing them. the only exception is if a girl went through something that confirmed to the people immediately that she had anito approval. notably, trans women were also among the subset of girls who got to skip the selection process. this is my speculation but i like to think it’s probably because the locals considered the realisation that one was trans as anito approval. assigned female by duende

usually, i’m very wary of putting modern queer labels onto historical figures (we don’t know how they would identify now), but spanish colonial records noted that amab babaylans, outside of their ritualistic roles, would live like women (down to having husbands), were treated like women and were simply considered women barring the ability to bear children. if she walks like a woman, talks like woman…that didn’t stop the spanish settlers from misgendering them, though.

that being said, in present day, while there are still people out there practising babaylan rituals, they’re mostly men who only take on feminine appearances during the rituals, and live as men in their regular lives. this stems back from the spanish colonial period and we are not getting into that now this read more is long enougb as it is

personally i find this fascinating because, at least for what i was able to look into, trans babaylans were the only time i could look at a historical indigenous gender identity and definitively refer to them as lgbt. most other indigenous identities are either meant to be their own thing (not native american, but i remember reading discourse over whether two-spirit should be considered nb or as its own thing) or far too complex to be described with the western modern lgbt terms (although they generally present feminine, the hijras from india classify themselves as a separate third gender and worship specific deities from hinduism). maybe i haven’t looked hard enough but it’s so interesting to hear about old communities where women, and especially trans women, were basically the most important figures

anyway sorry for rambling. sometimes i like to ramble.

[cece693]

Not Interested (Jasper Whitlock x M! Reader)

Summary: You never understood the hype over the Cullen family. Sure, they were beautiful, but didn’t anyone at school have enough common sense to notice something was off? Too bad a certain empath is smitten with you and merely finds your open disdain entertaining.

tags: perceptive reader, Jasper is smitten, isn't character canon nor resembles his original description, human reader, reader is a hothead and unfiltered, creative liberties with Jasper

You never understood the hype over the Cullen family. Sure, they were beautiful, but didn’t anyone at school have enough common sense to notice something was off? They looked like marble statues—flawlessly sculpted but lifeless, almost artificial. And then there were their mannerisms, too controlled to be teenagers. It was all a bit too uncanny for your liking.

Jasper Hale was no exception. Out of all of them, he seemed like the biggest walking red flag. He wasn’t an asshole, exactly, but his whole demeanor screamed danger. Every time you glanced his way, he was as stiff as a board, eyes unblinking and hands clenched into fists beneath the table, like he was holding himself back from doing something. There was a reason people said he was the second most unapproachable Cullen, with Rosalie taking the number one spot. Yet, despite his apparent hatred for people, he seemed determined to catch your attention.

He'd linger by your locker, his eyes burning a hole in your back. When you snapped at him to get lost, he didn’t flinch. He smiled. HE FUCKING SMILED LIKE YOU WERE A KITTEN THROWING A TANTRUM. In class, he'd try to strike up a conversation, blatantly ignoring your clipped and cold responses with a patience only a saint could have. Not only did you notice this, but the whole school did, too. Jasper’s odd behavior had quickly become a hot topic.

Jessica, damn her soul, was at the head of the rumor mill, spinning far-fetched stories about you and Jasper being secret lovers. If punching someone—much less a girl—wouldn’t get you expelled or possibly arrested, Jessica would have been target number one. You tried to keep your anger in check, especially when the whole school (students and staff alike) kept staring at you and Jasper like you were part of some soap opera. But one rumor, in particular, pushed you over the edge.

“I’m not a sugar baby!” you hissed at Jessica when she tried to strike up a conversation about the nonexistent gifts Jasper was supposedly giving you. “What bullshit gave you that idea?”

“He gave you a pencil—”

“Oh, fuck off and shove that pencil—” You couldn’t finish that thought as the bell rang, signaling the end of lunch and the beginning of fourth period. Jessica just waved goodbye and scurried off, knowing your temper wouldn’t be stopped by a bell. Huffing, you made your way to history class, where, lo and behold, Jasper was already seated, a grin on his face.

As the class dragged on, you couldn’t keep ignoring Jasper or the hushed whispers of the other students. His grin never faltered, and neither did the feeling of his gaze burning into you.

Screw it.

Without waiting for the teacher to finish his lecture on some historical battle you couldn’t care less about, you stood up abruptly.

“Out,” you muttered, grabbing Jasper by the arm with a grip that brooked no argument. Jasper, taken aback, allowed you to drag him to his feet. A low murmur rippled through the class, but you didn’t care. You were done playing around.

You hauled him out of the classroom, ignoring the teacher’s confused calls after you, and pulled him down the hallway to the nearest janitor's closet. You shoved the door open, pushed him inside, and slammed it shut behind you. The tiny space was dimly lit and filled with the scent of cleaning supplies, but you didn’t let the cramped quarters intimidate you. Instead, you crowded Jasper back against a shelf, glaring up at him.

“Alright, Hale,” you snapped, eyes blazing. “I’m sick of the staring, the lurking, and the creepy smiles. What's your deal? Are you trying to get under my skin, or are you just that bored?”

For a moment, Jasper didn’t respond. Then, slowly, that infuriatingly calm smile spread across his lips. “You know,” he drawled, his voice like honey dripping off a knife, “for someone who claims not to care, you seem awfully worked up about it.”

“Cut the crap,” you growled, slamming your palm against the shelf beside his head. “You’ve been following me around like some kind of deranged puppy, and I want to know why. And don’t you dare feed me some bullshit line about coincidence.”

Jasper’s smile faded, and for a moment, his eyes flickered with something darker, something almost… amused. “Maybe some of the rumors are true,” he admitted, his voice low but steady. “Maybe I do want to get to know you better.”

The words hung in the air, surprising you. You’d expected deflection, but this was something else. You narrowed your eyes. “Get to know me?” you echoed. “And what exactly does that mean?”

“It means,” Jasper continued, his gaze meeting yours head-on, “that you’re different from the others. You don’t fawn over us like we’re gods, and you’re not afraid to speak your mind. It’s… refreshing.”

You snorted. “So, what? You think acting like a creep is the way to get my attention? Newsflash, Hale: it’s not working.”

His lips twitched, almost like he was holding back a laugh. “Oh, I don’t know,” he said. “It got you to drag me in here, didn’t it?”

That did it. You reached out, grabbed the front of his shirt, and pulled him closer, your faces mere inches apart. “Listen to me,” you said, your voice a low, dangerous whisper. “If you want to know me, try acting like a normal person instead of some stalker freak. Got it?”

Jasper didn't reply immediately, just stared at you before his gaze briefly flicked to your lips. “Got it,” he murmured, a reverent expression crossing his face that confused the hell out of you. You let go of him, expecting him to step back, but he didn’t. He stayed right where he was, not seeming at all bothered by the confined space or your proximity. “Just so we’re clear,” he added softly, “I’m not giving up. I’m still going to try to get to know you, whether you like it or not.”

Feeling a mix of frustration and something you didn’t want to name, you turned around and opened the door. “Fine, but try anything like this again, and I won’t be so nice.”

Jasper chuckled, that damn smile creeping back onto his face. “Deal, but somehow, I think you like a little chaos.”

You rolled your eyes. “Let’s get back to class, Hale.” you grumbled, stepping out into the hallway. But as you walked away, you couldn’t shake the feeling of his gaze on your back—a challenge silently hanging in the air between you.

[heirtotheempire]

I mostly agree, the two regimes have very different reasons as to why they are the way they are. But IMO it doesn't make the Ascendancy any good. Not as bad as the Empire still means pretty bad.

It's a choice of the lesser evil (lol). The Ascendancy has to choose between being completely cut off, or to be entirely open and vulnerable. But that is also a very black and white way of viewing the Chaos and the other aliens present. By assuming that everyone is out to get them and that enough encounters will be violent to justify isolation, they are viewing most species as a static being. No evolution, no change of behavior, no new systems.

At one point, it might have made sense to choose isolation. But that was hundreds, thousands of years ago. The way the Chiss see other species is incredibly outdated. It's like not wanting to go to Mexico because you're afraid of the Aztecs. It's a viewpoint that is born out of ignorance, and one that causes even more ignorance when left to sit.

The xenophobia has always been around in the Ascendancy, but perhaps just not at the intensity we see in the Ascendancy trilogy. Wanting to stay safe is one thing, but using that fear as a justification to never interact with other species doesn't feel right or morally righteous y'know. But the morality of it is an opinion of mine, not a fact lol.

Meanwhile the Empire is xenophobic bc Palpatine knew he could use the fear and hate as a weapon. Offensive xenophobia versus defensive xenophobia I guess. Both bad but in different directions.

As I read through the Ascendency trilogy, it is becoming more and more clear that the Chiss Ascendency is as hateful as the Empire. And it's odd how few people call that out. I think it is because Zahn does a fantastic job at hiding it through Chiss POV, but even then, the Chiss are still incredibly xenophobic and controlling. Yes, this includes Thrawn, he isn't the saint that so many people like to paint him as and frankly could be argued as worse.

I keep thinking about Ar'alani admitting she never saw non-Chiss as people. She is brilliant and kind, but only to other Chiss. We view her in a purely positive light because the POVs in these books are primarily Chiss, who agree with her. Of course her mindset is normal amongst Chiss, of course it isn't questioned, of course Ar'alani herself never questions it despite her experience off-world. It takes a direct and pretty personal interaction for her to think twice, and even then it is difficult for her to accept the humanity of a non-Chiss. They are lesser in her eyes. They are lesser in the eyes of most, if not all, of the Chiss.

It is fascinating, it really is. It's an interesting look into a xenophobic society without the initial hate from the reader. Because xenophobia is born out of misunderstanding and perpetuated systems of ignorance. If a similar situation was told but through the eyes of Imperial officers, fewer people would be willing to see the nuances. Because Empire=Bad and anyone associating with it is also Bad, right?

But, propaganda and cycles of ignorance are also to blame. Not every Imperial Officer was born hating aliens. Hell, even TARKIN started out incredibly sympathetic to alien species according to the canon novel by James Luceno. But his family taught him otherwise, just as the Chiss Ascendency teaches its own children see other species as lesser.

This mentality from the Ascendency is also seen in Thrawn: Treason with how Eli Vanto is treated simply for being human. The majority of officers hate his existence, insist he must prove himself (despite being at a lower rank than he was at when with the Empire), and are distrustful of him. Very similar to how Ronan treats Thrawn in the same novel.

This isn't, like, a call to love Chiss characters any less, but it's a bit odd to imply that Thrawn, or any other Chiss, would be against the Empire for the same reasons the Rebellion is. The Ascendency doesn't like the Empire because it could encroach on their rule, their space- not because it's xenophobic and oppresses too many people to count. The two systems are remarkably similar, which may be part of why Thrawn was inclined to help the Empire. It is familiar, and a system Thrawn himself has never opposed, even without taking Legends into account.

(SIDE NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP SPOILERS FOR GREATER GOOD OR LESSER EVIL ON THIS POST. I AM STILL READING THOSE BOOKS AND WOULD LIKE TO ENJOY THEM SPOILER-FREE)

[coreytaylr]

100% legit totally real facts about the historical stede bonnet

no the title is not a lie these are really REAL bc believe it or not, somehow the show made our stede MORE competent than the real one

sources: Real Pirates podcast (ep1, ep2, ep3, ep4, ep5), Dirty Sexy History podcast (with jeremy moss, bonnet's biographer, who LOVES the show, and said it changed his perspective on bonnet's and blackbeard's relationship PLUS he has the stedesrevenge handle on twt)

the library on the revenge was a real thing. the man really did that.

running away from his family to be a pirate

paying a salary to his crew

SHOWING UP IN NASSAU IN FRILLY GENTLEMANLY CLOTHES AND A POWDERED WIG

before bonnet's capture, he ran his ship aground and that's how the english caught up with him BUT the two english ships also ran aground (😭), so they fought each other with their flintlock pistols from behind their ships (until the tides turned and dislodged the english ships first. rip)

adopted an alias when he started pirating so people wouldn't know it was him but he raided ships near Barbados (where he's from), so that didnt turn out well. his solution? burning every ship from Barbados

he only succeeded in his early days bc merchant ships knew they would get off easier if they surrendered

ATTACKED A WARSHIP that whooped his ass so bad he almost died. the remaining crew steered the ship to Nassau where he met blackbeard

blackbeard stole the revenge from him but "allowed" him to stay on BB's ship (either as a guest or as a prisoner, it's not clear, but he def wasn't a crew member bc he didn't have any chores)

he was seen on deck running around in his gowns 😭😭

BB eventually reinstated him as the captain of the revenge and they sailed together for a while

"there is a 4 month period where stede and blackbeard kind of disappeared and no one really knows what they were doing" 👀

BB allowed bonnet to raid on his own which lead to him getting his ass beat by the Protestant Caesar. BB then proceeded to HUNT DOWN THE PROTESTANT CAESAR while flying the RED FLAG (which meant no mercy to anyone on board)

bonnet would raid ships and take what provisions he needed and give the other ship what he didn't need (essentially the library raiding scene lmaoo)

BB betrayed bonnet by raiding his ship and marooning his crew while bonnet was off getting a pardon

SO BONNET SWORE REVENGE AGAINST BB who was at the time, the most feared pirate

this led to him adopting another alias - "he also changes his name, at the time he goes by captain edward's. which is really interesting, I don't know if that's an homage to, you know, edward teach, but.. captain edward's with an "s", that's as if he's.. a possession of captain edward" ONCE AGAIN 👀👀👀👀

HE ESCAPED PRISON BY DRESSING AS A WOMAN

after escaping, he was promised a sloop by some rando. when the rando didnt deliver, bonnet "WROTE HIM A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER REPRIMANDING THE MAN"

that letter led to him being recaptured 😭😭

he was hanged while holding a bouquet of wilted flowers

[kaiserin-erzsebet]

I would LOVE to hear more gripes about accuracy of portrayal of historical monarchies!!!

I have been wanting to do this for a while, because there is a lot that irks me. And this ranges across board from big budget period dramas to how people write royalty AUs, which means this isn't one specific thing I'm pointing at. And if it is helpful on a writing tips level, I'll be happy with that.

Long post under the cut:

Disclaimers:

I research 19th century European history, which has a lot of questions about what a monarchy is and why they continue to exist. That's the perspective I am bringing to this.

I probably shouldn't have to say this, but: this is not about modern monarchism. This is about history. I don't want to debate whether you think certain countries should continue to have their monarchs be public figures who are only nominally head of state.

The short version:

Monarchies are institutions. They are part of how the government functions and that should have implications for how someone writes them. A monarch is a person with a built in job that they were born into.

Monarchies are not all absolute. They can exist in a multiple forms with very different structures, and often discontent within a monarchy wants to reform the system not replace it.

My biggest advice would be this: figure out how your fictional or historical monarchy is structured. You don't have to exposit about it, but you do need to know it.

The long version:

The King has a job and there is a right and wrong way to do it.

Fantasy monarchies that draw upon history seem to have Versailles in mind in terms of an aesthetic space and royalty with a lot of power over the people around them. This also includes a lot of lounging around and looking pretty and doing lavish things. However, the issue is that this is a mental image of the dysfunction in the French monarchy close to the revolutions. You can't "Après moi, le déluge" through several centuries of government.

A King (or Queen) has a job, a really important one. They are the head of state, the highest authority in the country, and the highest judge on legal matters. At least in the platonic ideal of absolute monarchy, those jobs being concentrated into one person means their responsibility and good judgement will give the state stability and consistently.

Enlightened absolutism was exactly that: monarchs staunchly holding onto the ideals of the Enlightenment and making reforms from the top down. People who read texts about ideal government and natural rights and put it into practice.

A lot of fiction takes that and goes: Oh, so they have unlimited power and can do whatever they want. Being king means you can do what you want without oversight? That's why someone would want to be king?

And yeah, sure, in theory. But the problem with having a job is that you can do it poorly and people will object to you doing it poorly. If someone is not fulfilling obligations, it is noticeable because the state functions poorly. The premise of Robin Hood is that the king is doing his job poorly. He's overtaxing, the officials are corrupt, there's disorder. The solution? Bring back the true king who is good and fair, and thus functional.

Ludwig II of Bavaria gets ousted from his throne for being more interested in opera and extravagant building projects than ruling. Again, it is a problem and people notice.

Historically, if you want to protect from someone being bad at the job you can support the idea that there should be more oversight and safeguards: Other bodies that control parts of the government alongside the king's ability to approve or disapprove. This tactic takes away the ability to be arbitrary since laws and such are not just coming from the crowned head of state. That would be a constitutional monarchy.

Not everyone needs to be Franz Joseph, waking up at the crack of dawn and working on governmental papers and meetings until bedtime. However, if a monarch is shown in fiction lounging around or talking to courtiers all day but never doing any actual governing, I'm going to assume they are very bad at their job.

2. You're probably understanding Courts and Ministers wrong.

I run into the issue quite a bit that courts are flattened to random servants, ladies-in-waiting, and people trying to be the king's sole advisor (for malicious power grabbing reasons).

The first problem: Being at court isn't an easily accessible thing. You're probably nobility or a scion of an important family. Your presence is built on family prestige and your own skill. Yes, even people in service to the monarch. There are no random people here, because proximity heightens the likelihood of greater promotion.

For example, I'm currently doing my research on a prince from an important dynasty in the 19th century. His secretary is a Baron.

It's not impossible for someone not of noble birth to get to be at court. They could have risen up the ranks of the army or be an exceptionally skilled civil servant promoted to the rank of minister. Though depending on the time period, expect these "new men" to get pushback from nobility by blood.

Ministers also matter.

Unless your fictional monarch is one of the few people who decides (to mixed results) to do all of the thinking about government on their own, there is a cabinet and ministers.

These are skilled people whose job is to think about aspects of government and be knowledgeable about them. A monarch might have many of them that argue and balance each other.

Or, you can write a particularly skilled statesman in a leading role that makes them just as prominent as the monarch if not more so. There are many historical examples of ministers who define their period:

If your monarch character isn't a strong person politically, but is intelligent, having them find a minister to take over most of the governing is a good idea. This person is promoted based on merit, even if the monarchy is hereditary.

I have rarely if ever seen fiction do a good job with a prominent minister as a character (except A Royal Affair, which everyone should watch).

Think of monarchies as whole institutions of government. They have people within them who do all the jobs of governing. But the structure of the government and the personality of the monarch can determine whether it is one person (Joseph II, Peter the Great, etc.), a prominent minister (like a Metternich or Bismarck) or a counsel or congress.

The structure can support a person not doing a lot as monarch, but you as a writer need to think what structures are around them allowing that.

3. Revolutions are scary.

There is a common trend in fiction to make your good guys pro-republic. They're revolutionaries who want to get rid of the king, so they must be good.

But here's the thing: Revolutions are a step into the unknown and have historically happened rather rarely and with very mixed results. That's because the system has to be really broken for something totally new to sound better than what you already have.

A monarchy can create a sense of stability: A fixed head of state who will be there until they die. Historically, people aren't seeking to change that. More often, the call is for a change within the existing structure. The Magna Carta or a written Constitution. Firing of Bad Ministers or the abdication of a bad king in favor of their heir. Creating elected bodies under the sovereign. These are all shifting the monarchical paradigm but keeping the monarchy intact.

And historically even the most liberal of people wanted to place restrictions of some sort on voting, especially property and gender restrictions.

There is a myriad of ways to change the system, the person at the top, or both while maintaining a monarchy. You can have a monarchy be elected as the best person among the nobility (though it didn't go that well for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

Completely throwing the whole thing out means risking all stability vanishing. That could be anarchy. That could mean a charismatic strongman who is also bad at governing in power. You could end up with a guillotine and rivers of blood in the streets. You could end up with a restoration eventually because Cromwell or Robespierre doesn't actually produce something people want to live under and they want the old certainty back.

People have a sense of inertia about changing government. What you have is better than what you don't know, especially if there can be internal reform. Making your character a Republican (in the Jacobin sense, not the US politics sense) means that they are a radical in most times and places and will likely be in the minority.

If there is one thing I would say is the point here is that monarchies are government systems, and thinking through how someone exists in that system in fiction is important. Being king isn't actually much of a fun job unless you're very good at delegating or very irresponsible. Unless you want to be celebrity, president, congress, and moral center of the state all in one, being king isn't a great deal.

[determinate-negation]

maybe I am wrong but I think there's an interesting paradox in zionism's denial of the diaspora and it's appropriation of the diaspora because it can't form a culture without taking from the diaspora itself

its a paradox of zionism in general, from its start its been a movement that took cultural and political influence from its surroundings– being 19th century europe– its a colonial and nationalist project modeled after other colonial and nationalist european projects, yet tries to portray itself as indigenous. part of this is from shifts in political atmosphere and self-perception of zionism over the past 100 years. but there is an 'israeli culture' you can point to that is not taken from the diaspora but rather an inversion of what it conceives the diaspora to be, for the diaspora to be seen as weak, sickly, overly intellectual, cosmopolitan and disconnected from the land, thus israeli culture is more militaristic, chauvinistic, with an emphasis on the masculine, fetishizing labor and agricultural work. the paradox is this cultural conception is basically lacking everything that made jewish diaspora culture interesting and leave a long lasting mark on western history, jewish culture as a minority culture in particular. i think the cultural output of colonial or imperial nations mostly interested in projecting strength and militarism is generally poor, chauvinistic, and easily forgotten because it lacks the qualities that make particular things significant historically artistically etc. like look at the cultural atmosphere of the weimar republic, or even imperial germany (after relative) jewish emancipation and the influence of minority cultures vs cultural production in the nazi period and afterwards, or american settler culture in the colonial period vs cultural forms created by oppressed people in america. if you are interested more specifically in israels conception of itself as like a negation of the diaspora the artist eli valley made a cartoon about this, israel man and diaspora boy. israeli society historically tried to erase diaspora culture within israel, like discouraging people from speaking yiddish and banning yiddish cultural production. but also needed to construct a positive cultural identity (i dont mean positive to mean good, just like as in creating something rather than negating or destroying) and appropriated palestinian culture, through taking indigenous names, food, etc. if you want to read about this process in israel as well as other settler colonies like australia and canada and the us the article settler colonialism and the elimination of the native by patrick wolfe is a pretty significant article. i would say as far as i can tell israeli culture today seems to be mostly predicated on this, not appropriation of diaspora jewish culture, which they seem to look down on generally. but theres not much interest in israeli literature or art worldwide, besides in germany (lol), and perhaps their failure to create anything worthwhile is part of why israeli archival and academic institutions seek to claim ownership of diaspora jewish culture. part of it is just to legitimize themselves and give themselves prestige as well i think

[writers-potion]

Ideas For Religious Horror

Religion can bring out the best in people - and the worst. Horror fiction involving religious elements can bring into question our beliefs about morality, the definition of sin, and the modern interpretation of old rules.

Here are some ideas for dark story plots that circles around religions as a theme.

Horror In Holy Books

Use the stories that are handed down in holy texts to inspire the monsters and ghosts in your story.

Retellings of holy texts can also be quite interesting:

Think of Jonah from the Bible. First, there's a terrifying gale and the danger of the ship sinking. Then the sailors toss him overboard into the stormy sea. And finally, he gets swallowed by a whale and survives for three days and nights in the fish's belly...perfect adventure fiction material, I'd say.

Faith verses Fear

When writing about religious heroes, the story gets much more exciting when you insert moments of doubt and fear. The greater the fear and the shakier his faith becomes in the climax, the more triumphant the sucko ending would be.

Religious Historical Horror

If you're writing Historical fiction, you'll find lots of scary religious contexts.

The hero has (modern) attitudes of compassion and faith, but his contemporaries apply religious rules in the gruesome ways of their period.

The religious practices/dogma are discriminatory, which the hero fights against.

The hero is a religious martyr, pushed into the quest by religious leaders.

Unbelievers Meet Scary Gods

Here, the characters explore an old temple or the rubble of a fallen sacred site, asserting that they don't believe in gods.

They inadvertently commit sacrilege - and realize only too late that there's a high price to be paid.

This works well with both real and fictional religions.

Religion as Evil

Instead of presenting the whole religion as evil, focus on the evil specific character commiting crimes in the name of their religion.

It can also be "fake" religion - a greedy person makes up a pseudo-religion to place people under their influence. They would misguide people and use them for their own ends - greed, power, monetary and sexual gratification.

To give depth to your story, let the villain and the hero have the same faith, but interpret it differently. Would the others be able to distinguish the two of them?

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* . ───

💎If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 

💎Before you ask, check out my masterpost part 1 and part 2 

💎For early access to my content,  become a Writing Wizard 

[historical-fashion-polls]

your blog is great but its a small sliver of the reason why studios will not care about period dress in film. like 9/10 before voting i already can pick which one is leading based on how silhouettes and other things that are consider more goofy to do in modern times. its not your fault and im not upset but i find it interesting even when looking at historical dress we still see it through a lense of modern styles and almost subconsciously probably prefer what looks more familiar. and well when you got hot actresses executives dont want them to actually dress like theyre speeve maxxing in 1896 bc sex sells of something idk

hi there anon,

I've spent most of the morning trying to figure out how to respond to this message, because I genuinely always try to assume that all asks are sent with the best intentions, but to be honest, I'm having a really hard time seeing this as anything but a bad faith reading of the blog

as I've mentioned many times, I run this blog entirely for fun and because people enjoy it. I've always intended it as a place for joy and whimsy where people can play pretend and imagine themselves wearing lovely garments from the past

if you read the notes of the polls and many of the asks that have been sent to the blog, I think you'll find there's actually a great diversity of opinion on garments from every era. many people have mentioned that the blog has even given them a better sense of the trajectory of historical fashion and has helped them improve their skills in dating garments

even if the majority of people almost always do pick the garment that is most resonant with modern sensibilities (which (1) I'm not totally convinced of, and (2) which is rather a subjective judgement anyway), the real goal here is that people have fun and get to enter an imaginative headspace where they can picture themselves wearing the various garments

there is definitely space for a conversation about what historical accuracy actually *means* and where we do and don't see it in media and why that might be the case, but to be honest I have a very hard time seeing how my little for-fun blog has any relevance to or influence over larger cultural tendencies in major media. if anything, people's responses to the polls are an outgrowth of opinions and ideas about historical fashion that are already extant in the cultural space, not something formed independently by the existence of the blog or by the experience of participating in the polls

I'm not sure how else to conclude except to say that I'm sorry that you feel this way about the blog and – at the risk of being too honest – I'm sorry you felt the need to tell me, because this did ruin my day a little 💔

[marzipanandminutiae]

I've gotten some interesting responses to my post wondering if Um Actually 3 AM Is The REAL Time For Supernatural Occurrences was a traditional thing before I first noticed it in the creepypasta boom of the late 00s-2010s, as many of those creepypastas claimed. some of them along "guys. please. reading comprehension" lines, I admit

"Lots of cultures have a Witching Hour!" yes, true, but that's not 3 AM specifically. for a long time it was usually midnight, or an unspecified late night/wee hours of the morning period

"This author says 3 AM feels like depression or vice versa!" that is not about Spooky Things Happening; try again

"early Christian beliefs say-" "well, in traditional Japanese folklore-" sources??? (also from what I've seen while looking into this, the Hour of the Ox in historical Japanese timekeeping was between 1 AM and 3 AM- 3 AM specifically was the end of it, not the beginning. but it was a traditional time for curses)

A mention of 3 AM as a particularly bad time of night re: health, sleep, nightmares, etc. in Ray Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes (1962), which DOES seem reliable and close enough to what I'm talking about

Apparently the 1974 Amityville murders happened at 3 AM, and of course that house had a highly public (probably faked) haunting. So that could have contributed

I haven't yet found anything earlier than that Bradbury reference that SPECIFICALLY mentions 3 AM as a time when scary and/or supernatural things happen, WITH ACTUAL SOURCES

Interestingly, the Bradbury quote doesn't seem to refer back to an existing cultural belief in the idea of Evil 3 AM(TM). rather it's framed as the narrator's personal feelings around that particular time of night:

"Oh God, midnight’s not bad, you wake and go back to sleep, one or two’s not bad, you toss but sleep again. Five or six in the morning, there’s hope, for dawn’s just under the horizon. But three, now, Christ, three A.M.! Doctors say the body’s at low tide then. The soul is out. The blood moves slow. You’re the nearest to dead you’ll ever be save dying. Sleep is a patch of death, but three in the morn, full wide-eyed staring, is living death! You dream with your eyes open. God, if you had strength to rouse up, you’d slaughter your half-dreams ... And wasn’t it true, had he read somewhere, more people in hospitals die at 3 A.M. than at any other time." [I can't find any credible studies of this, for the record]

so it seems like the seeds of the idea were floating around in the cultural consciousness for a long time, between unspecified Witching Hours and the Hour of the Ox curses and this probably erroneous but popular belief that most people who die in hospitals do so at 3 AM. but as for the very strictly-defined notion that Supernatural Things Are Most Likely To Happen At 3 AM...the earliest anecdotal reference I saw to someone having heard that was from the 1980s, and it doesn't seem to have really entered the zeitgeist with force until the late 2000s, earliest

unless someone shows me a source on something earlier, that's what I'm going with

which leaves my takeaway, as a paranormal believer, being: there's nothing supernaturally special about 3 AM, unless it has individual significance to a specific entity or haunting (ie residual apparition of an event that took place at that time). it's something people came up with for interesting fiction, as a fresh take on the longstanding western idea that the Witching Hour is midnight, and not even that long ago

[writingwithcolor]

My alternate universe fantasy colonial Hong Kong is more authoritarian and just as racist but less homophobic than in real life, should I change that?

@floatyhands asked:

I’m a Hongkonger working on a magical alternate universe dystopia set in what is basically British colonial Hong Kong in the late 1920s. My main character is a young upper middle-class Eurasian bisexual man.  I plan to keep the colony’s historical racial hierarchy in this universe, but I also want the fantasy quirks to mean that unlike in real life history, homosexuality was either recently decriminalized, or that the laws are barely enforced, because my boy deserves a break. Still, the institutions are quite homophobic, and this relative tolerance might not last. Meanwhile, due to other divergences (e.g. eldritch horrors, also the government’s even worse mishandling of the 1922 Seamen's Strike and the 1925 Canton-Hong Kong Strike), the colonial administration is a lot more authoritarian than it was in real history. This growing authoritarianism is not exclusive to the colony, and is part of a larger global trend in this universe.  I realize these worldbuilding decisions above may whitewash colonialism, or come off as choosing to ignore one colonial oppression in favor of exaggerating another. Is there any advice as to how I can address this issue? (Maybe I could have my character get away by bribing the cops, though institutional corruption is more associated with the 1960s?) Thank you!

Historical Precedent for Imperialistic Gay Rights

There is a recently-published book about this topic that might actually interest you: Racism And The Making of Gay Rights by Laurie Marhoefer (note: I have yet to read it, it’s on my list). It essentially describes how the modern gay rights movement was built from colonialism and imperialism. 

The book covers Magnus Hirschfeld, a German sexologist in the early 1900s, and (one of) his lover(s), Li Shiu Tong, who he met in British Shanghai. Magnus is generally considered to have laid the groundwork for a lot of gay rights, and his research via the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was a target of Nazi book-burnings, but he was working with imperial governments in an era where the British Empire was still everywhere. 

Considering they both ended up speaking to multiple world leaders about natural human sexual variation both in terms of intersex issues and sexual attraction, your time period really isn’t that far off for people beginning to be slightly more open-minded—while also being deeply imperialist in other ways.

The thing about this particular time period is homosexuality as we know it was recently coming into play, starting with the trial of Oscar Wilde and the rise of Nazism. But between those two is a pretty wildly fluctuating gap of attitudes.

Oscar Wilde’s trial is generally considered the period where gay people, specifically men who loved men, started becoming a group to be disliked for disrupting social order. It was very public, very scandalous, and his fall from grace is one of the things that drove so many gay and/or queer men underground. It also helped produce some of the extremely queercoded classical literature of the Victorian and Edwardian eras (ex: Dracula), because so many writers were exploring what it meant to be seen as such negative forces. A lot of people hated Oscar Wilde for bringing the concept to such a public discussion point, when being discreet had been so important.

But come the 1920s, people were beginning to wonder if being gay was that bad, and Mangus Hirschfeld managed to do a world tour of speaking come the 1930s, before all of that was derailed by wwii. He (and/or Li Shiu Tong) were writing papers that were getting published and sent to various health departments about how being gay wasn’t an illness, and more just an “alternative” way of loving others. 

This was also the era of Boston Marriages where wealthy single women lived together as partners (I’m sure there’s an mlm-equivalent but I cannot remember or find it). People were a lot less likely to care if you kept things discreet, so there might be less day to day homophobia than one would expect. Romantic friendships were everywhere, and were considered the ideal—the amount of affection you could express to your same-sex best friend was far above what is socially tolerable now.

Kaz Rowe has a lot of videos with cited bibliographies about various queer disasters [affectionate] of the late 1800s/early 1900s, not to mention a lot of other cultural oddities of the Victorian era (and how many of those attitudes have carried into modern day) so you can start to get the proper terms to look it up for yourself.

I know there’s a certain… mistrust of specifically queer media analysts on YouTube in the current. Well. Plagiarism/fact-creation scandal (if you don’t know about the fact-creation, check out Todd in the Shadows). I recommend Kaz because they have citations on screen and in the description that aren’t whole-cloth ripped off from wikipedia’s citation list (they’ve also been published via Getty Publications, a museum press). 

For audio-preferring people (hi), a video is more accessible than text, and sometimes the exposure to stuff that’s able to pull exact terms can finally get you the resources you need. If text is more accessible, just jump to the description box/transcript and have fun. Consider them and their work a starting place, not a professor. 

There is always a vulnerability in learning things, because we can never outrun our own confirmation bias and we always have limited time to chase down facts and sources—we can only do our best and be open to finding facts that disprove what we researched prior.

Colonialism’s Popularity Problem

Something about colonialism that I’ve rarely discussed is how some colonial empires actually “allow” certain types of “deviance” if that deviance will temporarily serve its ends. Namely, when colonialism needs to expand its territory, either from landing in a new area or having recently messed up and needing to re-charm the population.

By that I mean: if a fascist group is struggling to maintain popularity, it will often conditionally open its doors to all walks of life in order to capture a greater market. It will also pay its spokespeople for the privilege of serving their ends, often very well. Authoritarians know the power of having the token supporter from a marginalized group on payroll: it both opens you up directly to that person’s identity, and sways the moderates towards going “well they allow [person/group] so they can’t be that bad, and I prefer them.”

Like it or not, any marginalized group can have its fascist members, sometimes even masquerading as the progressives. Being marginalized does not automatically equate to not wanting fascism, because people tend to want fascist leaders they agree with instead of democracy and coalition building. People can also think that certain people are exaggerating the horrors of colonialism, because it doesn’t happen to good people, and look, they accept their friends who are good people, so they’re fine. 

A dominant fascist group can absolutely use this to their advantage in order to gain more foot soldiers, which then increases their raw numbers, which puts them in enough power they can stop caring about opening their ranks, and only then do they turn on their “deviant” members. By the time they turn, it’s usually too late, and there’s often a lot of feelings of betrayal because the spokesperson (and those who liked them) thought they were accepted, instead of just used.

You said it yourself that this colonial government is even stricter than the historical equivalent—which could mean it needs some sort of leverage to maintain its popularity. “Allowing” gay people to be some variation of themselves would be an ideal solution to this, but it would come with a bunch of conditions. What those conditions are I couldn’t tell you—that’s for your own imagination, based off what this group’s ideal is, but some suggestions are “follow the traditional dating/friendship norms”, “have their own gender identity slightly to the left of the cis ideal”, and/or “pretend to never actually be dating but everyone knows and pretends to not care so long as they don’t out themselves”—that would signal to the reader that this is deeply conditional and about to all come apart. 

It would, however, mean your poor boy is less likely to get a break, because he would be policed to be the “acceptable kind of gay” that the colonial government is currently tolerating (not unlike the way the States claims to support white cis same-sex couples in the suburbs but not bipoc queer-trans people in polycules). It also provides a more salient angle for this colonial government to come crashing down, if that’s the way this narrative goes.

Colonial governments are often looking for scapegoats; if gay people aren’t the current one, then they’d be offered a lot more freedom just to improve the public image of those in power. You have the opportunity to have the strikers be the current scapegoats, which would take the heat off many other groups—including those hit by homophobia.

In Conclusion

Personally, I’d take a more “gays for Trump” attitude about the colonialism and their apparent “lack” of homophobia—they’re just trying to regain popularity after mishandling a major scandal, and the gay people will be on the outs soon enough.

You could also take the more nuanced approach and see how imperialism shaped modern gay rights and just fast-track that in your time period, to give it the right flavour of imperialism. A lot of BIPOC lgbtqa+ people will tell you the modern gay rights movement is assimilationalist, colonialist, and other flavours of ick, so that angle is viable.

You can also make something that looks more accepting to the modern eye by leaning heavily on romantic friendships that encouraged people waxing poetic for their “best friends”, keeping the “lovers” part deeply on the down low, but is still restrictive and people just don’t talk about it in public unless it’s in euphemisms or among other same-sex-attracted people because there’s nothing wrong with loving your best friend, you just can’t go off and claim you’re a couple like a heterosexual couple is.

Either way, you’re not sanitizing colonialism inherently by having there be less modern-recognized homophobia in this deeply authoritarian setting. You just need to add some guard rails on it so that, sure, your character might be fine if he behaves, but there are still “deviants” that the government will not accept. 

Because that’s, in the end, one of the core tenants that makes a government colonial: its acceptance of groups is frequently based on how closely you follow the rules and police others for not following them, and anyone who isn’t their ideal person will be on the outs eventually. But that doesn’t mean they can’t have a facade of pretending those rules are totally going to include people who are to the left of those ideals, if those people fit in every other ideal, or you’re safe only if you keep it quiet.

~ Leigh