#other than malign self interest

[feministdragon]

”AI-generated text has been making waves in recent months because ChatGPT (based on GPT3.5) is producing some scarily good output, to the point where it can pass a medical licensing exam. But the AI is only as good as what it is trained on, and it can’t really judge what is materially “true”, only weigh up probabilities based on the vast amounts of data it is given. So what is the training set for GPT3.5?

According to their published paper the data sources and weighting are:

Common Crawl (filtered) - 60% 

WebText2 - 22% 

Books1 - 8% 

Books2 - 8% 

Wikipedia - 3%

Common Crawl is an openly available snapshot of the web, and Wikipedia is self-explanatory. 

Books1 and Books2 are shrouded in mystery, but there is speculation that Books1 may be free books taken from smashwords.com or project Gutenberg. Books2 is likely to be something like libgen or scihub - a repository mainly of academic articles. 

WebText2 on the other hand is a dataset created by scraping upvoted content from Reddit, with reddit upvotes as a proxy for quality. A more thorough analysis of all of these datasets is here, including a breakdown of the top domains used in this Reddit dataset, but sites like Blogspot, Wordpress and Medium are all in the top 25. 

So, you have:

Academia churning out huge amounts of groupthink in gender studies

Journalistic sources like Reuters and the BBC having policies on trans issues that have been influenced by lobbying from organisations like ILGA-Europe and thus skew all coverage in favour of gender identitarian beliefs

Wikipedia content riven with bias in this area because it is wholly dependent on both of the above as reliable sources

Reddit systematically banning subs like /r/gendercritical for “promoting hate”, censoring women’s health subs, and banning users who post content that steps out of line on sex/gender issues

Other sites that are also heavily featured in Reddit - such as Medium - also banning content that steps out of line on sex/gender issuesMaya Forstater @MForstaterOh FFS 🙄🙄🙄 I'm going to need a new website aren't I? 6:39 PM ∙ Feb 9, 20232,175Likes396Retweets

All of this means that is a big chunk of the training data for machine learning is compounding bias upon bias. GPT3.5 then has an extra layer of human training on top of this model, whereby a set of safety mitigations are introduced, to reduce “toxic output generation”. The cumulative effect of groupthink, censorship, and a focus above all on certain conceptions of “identity” across multiple domains does not cancel out by combining all these datasets, but is reinforced.

GPT3.5 is just one of several developing systems, and it is no good simply appealing to the creators to “fix the bias”, as it is their own bias that is leading them to make these selections believing them to be the most rational and neutral ones available. Unless there is a serious effort to get academic literature out there that states the (for many people) blindingly obvious that sex is real, material and important, and that human sexuality is based on sex, then these perspectives will simply be filtered out as not part of the academic consensus. 

Wikipedia will continue to get more biased in this direction as there will be no source available to offer a corrective. AI will continue to learn from Wikipedia, academia, journalistic guidelines, and the porn-addled groupthink of Reddit that JK Rowling is she who must not be named, and crucially that the “anti-gender” and “gender critical” movements are all one big reactionary hate campaign propagated by the religious right.

So when people Google or ask Siri, the AI will give you the one and only one answer: that this is true, and no other respectable viewpoint exists. When social media increasingly relies on AI for content moderation, the content that risks being moderated out of existence will be that deemed unspeakable by all of these biased inputs.

As with the monks who allowed the works of Sappho to be lost to history because she wasn’t important enough to preserve in written form, so knowledge that is not accrued and presented in an acceptable format will not form part of the future. 

This is power, expressed not through conspiracy, but through total thoughtless conformity of views.”

I asked chatgtp if females could be transwomen and it said yes. i then asked how a female would know she was a transwoman and not just a cis woman. it corrected itself and said females could not be transwomen. i asked why not and it said exactly what you think: because they're female. i then asked if only males could be transwomen and it said yes. then i asked so tranwomen are male? and it shat itself. we went in circles then where it was just "sorry, yes" "sorry, no"

fucking nonsense

[physalian]

What No One Tells You About Writing #4 (100 Follower Special!)

Have you got any that deserve to be on these lists? Don’t be shy! Send ‘em over.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

*This list contains mentions of assault, #4

1. Zero cursing is better than censored cursing

I made the mistake in the early days of writing a self-censoring character, and every “curse” she said just took the teeth out of the rest of the statement. I’m talking gosh, darn, dang, etc, not world-specific idioms a la “scruffy nerf herder” or “dunderhead” instead of “dumbass”.

Look to any American TV show that so, so badly wants to use f*ck or sh*t but has to appease the sensitive conservatives who still somehow believe strong language is worse than graphic violence and horrifying psychological damage. For shame! Your characters can be angry without expletives, so rework your sentences to include equally damning insults that don’t resort to potty mouths if you’re concerned about ratings.

Or go full-throttle into the idioms of the world or the time period like Pirates of the Caribbean. Or just… don’t. There’s zero modern cursing in the Lord of the Rings adaptation and not a single sentence that censors itself. The dialogue is above vulgarity and feels more *fantastical* that way anyway.

2. “Yeah, you aren’t the target audience.”

It’s kind of hilarious seeing the range of reader reactions to two characters I intend to have a romantic relationship. Some will go “I ship it!” after the first page of them together… and another will go “wait, I thought they were just friends” up until they kiss. Sometimes you might be too subtle, other times it might be better to just accept that you can’t rewrite your entire book to please one naysayer.

When I’m pitched a fantasy adventure book that turns out to be a by-the-numbers romance where no one is allowed to be a peasant and every important character is royalty in some way, with a way cooler fantasy backdrop, I get severely disappointed. That doesn’t mean the book is bad, it just means I’m not the target audience.

3. There is no greater character sin than making them boring

Unless you live in the wacky world we find ourselves in where any flaws whatsoever are apparently harmful depictions of so-and-so and not at all written with things like ~nuance~. I will gush over your heinous villain committing atrocities because he’s *interesting*. I will not remember Bland Love Interest who’s a generic everyman with zero compelling or intriguing traits or flaws.

There’s another tumblr post out there that I cannot find that says something like this, and I believe the post goes “his crimes are fiction, my annoyance is real”. Swap annoyance for boredom and you get what I mean. So, I don’t care what your character does so long as they’re memorable. I will either root for their victory or their doom, but I do need *something* to root for.

4. The line between “gratuitous” and “respectful” is actually very thick

Less what no one tells *you* about writing and more what no one tells screenwriters. Y’all do realize you can write a character who experiences assault without actually writing the assault, right? Fade to black, have them mention it in their backstory, or have the horrific aftermath as they come to terms with it. An abrupt cut to this devastated character when it’s all over and they’re alone with themselves can be incredibly poignant and powerful. This goes with anything sensitive, especially if it’s not coming from experience.

If you want to write it or film it respectfully, romanticizing assault, for instance, is when it’s framed as if either character has earned or “deserves” it. If the narrative in any way argues that it's justified. The victim might have "earned" it for any of the BS reasons we use in the real world, or the perpetrator might've "earned" it because of temptation, desire, pressure to assert dominance, etc. Representation is important, but are you “representing” to shed light on a misunderstood and maligned topic, or are you doing it to satisfy a fetish or bias in yourself?

5. Don’t let your eyes get bigger than your stomach

Fantasy has no limitations, which means you can dig way deeper into the well of your worldbuilding than you realize, until you look up and realize you’re stuck down there. I have never seen a more obvious inevitable disaster looming than the pilot of GoT season 5. Why? Nobody has any plans. They’re all just led around by whatever side quest the writers throw them on, twiddling their thumbs until the writers deign to pull the trigger on the White Walkers.

To the point that what should be a major character can skip an entire season because his arc is meaningless. Everything in the last half of that show was one big “eventually” while the story toiled around in an ever-expanding cast of characters and set pieces (seriously, it’s hilarious how jarring the extended version of the theme music became compared to the pilot episode to fit all these locations).

When you have too many directionless characters, too many plot elements, too many ideas you want to fully mature and get their due spotlight and then somehow combine them all together for a common foe in the end, writing can get tedious and frustrating very quickly. Why, I imagine, the book series remains unfinished. Fantasy is great for being able to create such complex worlds, but don’t be the snake that eats its own tail trying too hard.

6. No one cares about your agenda if you insult them to push it

This deserves its own post but here we go. Peddling an agenda is a paradox: those who agree with you won’t need to be preached to, and those who you want to persuade will instead reject you further because they feel belittle and disrespected. This is why so many recent “strong female characters” fail on both sides of the aisle. Feminists see an annoying caricature of the movement they’re passionate about. Antifeminists see an insufferable, shallow, liberal mouthpiece when they just want to be entertained. You have failed both sides, congrats.

The answer? Write a strong, nuanced, well-developed character. Then make them a woman. I know this has been said before but this BS keeps happening so clearly the screenwriters aren’t listening. Entertain me first. Entertain me so well I don’t even realize I’m learning.

7. Today’s audiences won’t react the same way as tomorrow’s

Sometimes genres or tropes get oversaturated and need a few years to cool off before audiences are receptive to them again—teen dystopia, anyone?—that doesn’t mean your story is inherently bad because it’s unpopular (nor does it mean it’s amazing because it is popular).

You should always write the book you want to read, not the book that chases trends. I can pick up a well-written teen dystopia I’ve never read before and enjoy it. I can continue to ignore Divergent because it has nothing to say. Write the book you want to read, but then accept that you might make no money because no one else wants to read it, not because they think it’s bad. And, who knows? You might get a boom of chatter months or years down the line when readers stumble upon an uncut gem.

8. Your characters don’t age with you

Depending on how long you’ve been working on your world and what age you were when you started, the characters, concepts, morals, and story you set out to tell might no longer reflect who you want to be as an author when all is said and done. Writing can take years, some of which can be incredibly turbulent and life changing. I wrote the first draft of my first original novel in my freshman year of college. Those characters and that draft are now unrecognizable and has left a world I’ve poured my heart and soul into in limbo.

I’ve slowly creeped up my characters’ ages. My writing has matured dramatically. The themes I wanted to explore in the height of the 2016 election are just demoralizing now. That book was my therapeutic outlet and, as consequence, my characters sometimes reflect some awful moods and mindsets that I was in when writing them. But nothing in that world grows without me tending to it. It’s not alive. Despite all the work I’ve done, there’s still more to be done, maybe even restarting the plot from the ground up. When I think of what no one told me about writing, staring at characters designed by someone I’m not anymore is the hardest reality to accept.

—

If you think I missed something, check out parts 1-3 or toss your own hat into the ring. Give me romance tropes. Mystery, thriller, historical fiction, bildungsromans, memoires, children’s books, whatever you want! Give me stuff you wish you’d known before editing, publishing, marketing, and more. 

Also, don’t forget to vote in the dialogue poll!

[smile-files]

nickel and balloon stuff from spring on the breakfast!!! i'm keeping in mind that in the previous episode, both of them were under the impression that their friendship wasn't real...

in a way, ii3 balloon is a lot like late ii3 cabby. of course, balloon did something indisputably immoral (manipulate and exploit others), and cabby only did something thought to be immoral (keep and use files about her fellow contestants) -- but both did something wrong and had to subsequently undergo a disproportionate amount of abuse and malignment for it, ending up with them being apologetic and submissive to avoid any chance of being framed as bad again. the biggest difference is that cabby has internalized the guilt others have attributed to her, while balloon largely hasn't -- he understands the concept of rolling with the punches for the sake of keeping good connections, but he doesn't believe he deserves it.

nickel brushes off ii2 a LOT this episode. to rid himself of his guilt regarding that time, he necessarily has to delegitimize the hatred he felt towards balloon then, thus also ridding balloon of his guilt. he expresses this all vaguely, choosing to remember ii2 fondly and saying off-hand that its baggage should be laughed off -- implying that balloon has been forgiven. reasonably, balloon is happy that nickel seems to actually believe he's changed for the better, so initially this makes him happy.

of course, though, it becomes clear that nickel just wants to shove his own actions under the rug, and balloon reasonably gets pissed off. nickel treated balloon and suitcase like complete garbage in ii2, and balloon clearly hasn't forgotten that.

"it keeps things easy." it keeps things easy to roll with the punches, to endure nickel's abuse and accept his sudden friendship. note, also, that nickel is still placing the blame on balloon: he's saying that balloon didn't want to "make things better", as if nickel and balloon ever having a rift was entirely balloon's fault, and his problem to fix.

and as we can see, nickel still hasn't fully forgiven balloon for ii1. as i've discussed before, nickel seems to secretly feel incredible guilt about how he treated balloon in ii2 (which is why he goes to such lengths to repress the whole memory of it) -- but that guilt is about the way in which he expressed his disdain and distrust of balloon, not those opinions themselves, nor the motivations for them. this is all very interesting, then -- if he still believes balloon can't change from his old, bad self, why did nickel start being friends with him at all?

i think a large part of it is his projection onto balloon. nickel sees himself in balloon: someone who screwed up big-time and isn't able to become a better person after that (according to nickel). we tend to gravitate to people similar to us, after all. i wouldn't be surprised if nickel was also trying to overcompensate for his hostility towards balloon in ii2 by being very friendly with him in ii3, thereby helping him forget that he was ever hostile to him at all.

the most fascinating thing to me about balloon and nickel's relationship is how impersonal it is for balloon. he seems to value what nickel's affection represents rather than nickel himself -- and it represents that he's been forgiven. anyone who saw balloon and nickel's conflict in ii2, which was a product of balloon's nastiness in ii1 and nickel's subsequent inability to forgive that nastiness, would likely come to accept balloon and forgive him themselves if they then saw nickel being friendly with him -- because nickel is the epitome of the ii contestants' anger at him, and nickel of all people (seemingly) forgiving him would imply that he's really changed. the relationship is almost entirely a symbol in that regard. i don't think balloon has much residual guilt about is actions in ii1 -- he feels like he's adequately addressed them and changed -- but nickel having a positive relationship would be helpful in affirming that stance and proving to himself that he really has changed.

i wouldn't say it's cruel of balloon to keep this relationship going on under that pretense, but it is backhanded, and it helps explain why he was ever willing to accept nickel's friendliness unchallenged. he wanted his crimes to finally be laid to rest once and for all, and keeping nickel on good terms with him would let that happen. people would finally shut up about it. up until now, nickel wasn't explicitly denying his past cruelty towards balloon anyway, so balloon would be able to ignore that he neglected to ever bring it up; now, though, nickel is denying not only what he did to balloon but also to suitcase, which balloon is not able to tolerate. now that he's confronted nickel about that though, nickel snaps back with his condemnation of what balloon did in ii1, thereby uprooting the social stasis balloon had been able to maintain precisely because nickel refused to bring anything up before. in a way, then, balloon is purposefully shoving the past under the rug, just like nickel is.

we can't forget, though, that nickel has his own complex about fearing that he's incapable of change and incapable of forming positive, genuine relationships with people. balloon is essentially revealing that, in a way, he wasn't really friends with nickel -- at least not in the way nickel wished and fooled himself into thinking they were. if balloon truly were friends with nickel like that, then that would mean that balloon had forgiven him for his cruelty in ii2, and perhaps that he really has changed... but no. balloon hasn't forgiven him. why should he? nickel never apologized -- and given how he never apologized, it's impossible that he could've changed anyway: nickel doesn't want to apologize because that means addressing his guilt and allowing himself to feel it. he wants the forgiveness to be handed to him on a silver platter, without him having to do all of the painful work, and he's incredibly upset when it isn't. he wants to not be a bad person, but in order to do that, he has to feel like one, and he really doesn't want to. he hates who he was and doesn't want to associate with it at all.

(note how it's the suitcase robot who says "you can say sorry" when nickel says that nothing can be done about making things better...)

there's clearly an immeasurable amount of resentment these two have been harboring for each other throughout this season, which they'd only been hiding for the sake of fooling themselves into thinking they've changed (nickel) or thinking that others think they've changed (balloon). and now that they've let themselves explode with anger, partly related to the lies they'd been telling themselves falling apart, they yell at each other and balloon drops nickel down a hole!

ah, balloon and nickel's relationship... it's bizarre, it's toxic, it's convoluted, it's shady, and it's incredibly sad. i'm glad i'm revisiting ii3, especially this episode -- i used to be utterly baffled by nickel's writing, particularly in spring on the breakfast, but now it makes complete sense to me. also, i used to think balloon was entirely the victim in this relationship, while now i know that he has his own faults and own baggage in that regard. it's weird -- they hate each other, but at the same time they're dying to be liked by one another. god i love these freaks...

[hxmocrastic]

Yandere!Aegon I x M!Reader + NSFW HCs

— pairings ; Yandere!Aegon I x Male!Reader

— a/n ; There's barely any M!Reader fics in ASOIAF Tags so I wanted to make my own ! (And bc I was curious 🤭)

— warnings ; NSFW ; 18+ TWT Links ; Coercion ; Dark Elements ; Yandere Behavior; Hinted Homophobia ; Affair ;

You're a Lannister boy, The youngest of your four brothers and considered the weakest because of your stature, frame, and meek personality. Your father —Loren I Lannister— has always looked down upon you, He shunned and spurned you relentlessly even claiming that you weren't a Lion but a insolent rat. You're brothers were worst, Like your father they maligned you any chance they got hindering your self esteem to a crippled sheet of parchment. Though despite their belittlement, You were determined to prove yourself.

You caught Aegon's Attention when you attended a Tourney, Adorned in Red & Gold Armor representing your house colors. You were up against Ser Dayken Tyrell, A formidable knight but viscous as well. You fell from your horse more times than you could count surely making a mockery of house Lannister. Tyrell came charging at you atop his white stallion until his grace, King Aegon abruptly halted the knight ceasing the tournament.

Aegon took an interest in you and started to unintentionally eye you in the courtyards, Though very discreetly. His stare would linger as you bowed and sulked past him. He began wondering why you always held that glassy look in your eyes.

After watching you for long enough he decides to make you his cupbearer, Deeming you unfit for tourneys. Truly he just wanted to get closer to you. To know you.

During this time the both of you became close with one another, You vented to him about your problems and he'd listen. With his permission of course, It was almost impossible to get this information out of you.

A year passes and Aegon feels something stir within him, The Dark desires he tried to keep down boiling to the surface.

His behavior started to...shift within the last couple of months. He grew overwhelmingly possessive of you, You could barely pour another lords wine without his violet eyes burning holes into your form. You couldn't even go out and speak with your friends without him requesting your presence. Seriously you couldn't even eat by yourself !! And the worst part is you couldn't question him about it either...

It was only a matter of time before His sister-wives started to grow suspicious. I mean who could blame them, He spent more time with you than he did with rhaenys which said something.

Anytime they'd bring this to light to him, Aegon would just chuckle and reassure them that you were a mere servant— a cupbearer at that, And he would never have any relations with you.

Oh boy was he wrong. He'd sabotage and oppose any & all of your marriage proposals. Even going as far as having one of your bride-to-be's killed in her sleep. But for some reason, Even after all the marriage annulments they'd always end up missing.

This put a far greater stain on your reputation, on your house. There was rumors that you were cursed and you started to believe them yourself. But Aegon with that stupidly handsome smile on his face placed your sobbing form in his lap and cooed into your ear with sweet nothings. You couldn't see the twisted grin on his face.

Aegon would pull you from his chest to stare into your (E/C) eyes as he'd persuade you into Bed with him. You stared at the man in shock, mouth agape with no words spewing. You tried to reject him but he'd subtly threatened the Livelihood of your brothers and father, Cornering you. You had no other choice...

— 𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖 18+

✪ The Faith already had issues with the Targaryens Incestuous polyamory but lying with another man—A Lannister at that, If they were to find out chaos would erupt. Good thing they weren't ever going to. You two had your affairs in secret, You would sneak into his chambers at a certain time and not the other way around.

✪ He's never laid with another man before, But he's willing to try for you. Though Same sex relations weren't entirely scorned upon in his childhood, They weren't praised either. Aegon figured it worked just how a Man & Woman had sex, Let's just say he's a fast learner.

✪ His pace is rough and quick almost unforgiving, He likes to use you as a stress reliever especially when he's aroused. He's quite big, Cut and pink 9'8 but his girth certainly makes up for it.

✪ Aegon can be just as possessive in sex as he is when you're speaking with your brothers. After all the hell they put you through, He dislikes having you around them so more often then not he has you face down ass up on the table with hips slapping against yours. ⭐

✪ He loves taking you on your back with your legs over his shoulders and you underneath him. It gives him a sense of dominance and control over you as if he doesn't have already. But it's also intimate and passionate, He can gaze into your eyes and witness your face contorting into different motions of pleasure. ⭐

✪ When he's feeling gentle, Best believe he will absolutely WORSHIP YOU. I'm talking Shoulder kisses, Feet Massages Etc.

✪ Even though you two were quiet in your affairs, By this point Both Rhaenys & Visenya had put two and two together and already discovered your affair. Rhaenys encouraged him and Visenya could care less.

Art By @chillyravenart

[thebreakfastgenie]

I look at the current state of the online left, and wonder what the hell went wrong. How did we even end up like this?

I wonder if a lot of it is because of the foundation it started on. Blind anger and spiteful nihilism seems to be the core of the modern leftist, instead of purposeful anger and a hope for a better future.

There's also just a strong sense of paranoid fearfulness and extreme judgmentalism that just permeates throughout the online space, the constant need to tear other people down to posit oneself as being morally superior instead of building other people up. And yet it's also juxtaposed by this intense inability to actually make tough choices, a strong desire to avoid any and all moral discomfort and difficult decisions made for the sake of a messy imperfect good.

So instead of a good movement driven by a good ideal towards a better future, we instead get cruel, malignant, selfish and narcissistic pseudo-fundamentalists whose only interest is to destroy and sit atop the ashes for themselves, unable to consider or care what happens if they actually get what they want.

Yes, I definitely think those factors are at play. I also think in online spaces a lot of people jump ahead, so they decide they're leftists without really unpacking the foundations of their beliefs. And in addition to that, in some spaces in particular, you have the fandomization of politics and a vibes-based framework of justice. This is one way they can justify the cruelty, I think. "My cool friends and I think it's funny so it must be righteous." And there's an element of privilege, too. Like elite college campuses, I think certain online spaces self-select for people who are personally fairly insulated from the consequences of politics, which makes it very easy to care more about saying the right thing than about tangibly improving lives. It's a mess of factors and it's really frustrating to see at a time when we desperately need the left to pull together and fight for a clear, positive vision for the future.

[bekkandaa]

Tom Riddle: Narcissism, Heritage, and Mental Breakdown

This analysis will delve into Tom Riddle's narcissism, heritage, and my own hypothesis that a mental breakdown led to the ultimate murder of his family.

Before I begin, it's important to define some key psychological terms for anyone unfamiliar with the subject. I'll try to simplify things down, but if anything doesn't make sense don't worry too much.

Malignant Narcissism: This term describes individuals who exhibit all three traits from "The Dark Triad"— Machiavellianism, Psychopathy and Narcissism.

Machiavellianism : Commonly characterised by manipulation and exploitation of others, unemotional callousness, self-interest, and an overall lack of morality.

Psychopathy : Commonly characterised by continuous antisocial behaviour, selfishness, unemotional callousness, and an overall lack of remorse.

Narcissism : Marked by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and an overall lack of empathy.

In Psychoanalytic theory, primary narcissism is a normal part of child development, involving self-interest and object-love. Children often harbour notions of greatness and believe they are immune to any consequences. As they mature, they become disillusioned from these grand notions to integrate into mature society. pathological narcissism actually develops when this process is disrupted, resulting in defective narcissistic structures.

( Interestingly, a number of psychiatrists have established a direct link between malignant narcissism and evil— a perspective likely considered in the creation of Tom Riddle's character. However, it is important to note that while there is a connection, it does not necessarily define someone as evil.)

Tom Riddle's behaviour aligns perfectly with Heinz Kohut's theory of object-love. According to Kohut, a child requires a mother to affirm their grandiosity or, lacking this, seeks an adult to create an "idealised parent image." Tom, lacking a mother figure and grandiose figure to emulate, proceeded to construct his own powerful parental figure.

This is evident when we see Riddle question Dumbledore about his father's wizardry, as Tom assumes his mother could not have been a witch as if she was she wouldn't have died. This belief is shattered during his teenage years, which inevitably triggers his (narcissistic) rage of his idea being disillusioned. Tom Riddle has always been a character with an ongoing quest for identity and self-validation, which is seen in his prolonged search for the Chamber of Secrets to confirm his status as Heir of Slytherin.

Tom Riddle's obsession with power and control is a fundamental aspect of his character we can't ignore. The pursuit of control is a primary human motivation, gaining control is actually proved to enhance one's sense of well-being. For someone like Tom, when this control is threatened, they would resort to coping mechanisms to preserve their sense of self. For a narcissist like Tom, a threat to his control equates to a threat to his very self.

Now, to my entire point. The revelation of his true heritage and the truth about his parents triggered a mental breakdown, causing an identity crisis. Freud posits that human behaviour is influenced more by the unconscious mind than the conscious. The unconscious mind protects itself by concealing negative memories, which can affect behaviour and attitudes. In Tom’s case, his father's abandonment left a mark, which he could not reconcile. His only solution was to eradicate this source of shame and hatred.

Tom Riddle’s patricide and subsequent name change to Voldemort signify his profound self-loathing and rejection of his humanity. This action eradicates the evidence of his shameful heritage. According to Krech, hatred often correlates with anger, manifesting as a desire to destroy the source of hatred. Riddle’s murder of his father and paternal family was an attempt to reclaim control and restore his ego. TLDR :  Tom Riddle has a fragile sense of control and ego, loses the sense of control once he learns of his true heritage. Causing a mental breakdown and killing his family. In conclusion, he is miserable and hates everyone. ( even himself to a point.)

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

reading updates: august 2024

the good news is that I did a lot of reading this month, the bad news is that honestly? I think that my birthday month has had the biggest percentage of literary letdowns, duds, and outright bullshit than any other month of this year so far.

but at least there's plenty to talk about, so let's get going!

Unlearning Shame: How We Can Reject Self-Blame Culture and Reclaim Our Power (Devon Price, 2024) - uh oh gamers, we're starting on a doozy! I've enjoyed both of Price's previous books very much, but with Unlearning Shame I couldn't help but feel like I couldn't quite shake the feeling that I wasn't getting what I had signed on for. the issue, I think, could be corrected by an adjustment to the title, which seems to be promising a very broad tackling of the concept of shame and is therefore making some pretty big promises. in reality, the book is much more narrowly focused than that, interested primarily in the shame that arises in the activism-minded when they feel overwhelmed by the sheer amount of awful things in the world and their perceived inability to do anything about it. fairly early on Price introduces an apparently relatable anecdote about himself and a friend having mutual breakdowns in a grocery store because they were both so paralyzed by the conundrum of trying to buy the most ethical groceries possible, and I realized this book was maybe not really for me or my particular experiences with shame. I think this book will be really helpful for a lot of people for sure, would love to pass it on to a lot of my freshmen, but overall it did not live up to the expectations I brought to the party.

A Separate Peace (John Knowles, 1959) - so I wanted to reread this because someone on here sent me an ask about, I don't know, my favorite required high school reading or whatever, and I said it was A Separate Peace but then I realized it's been over a decade since I read the book and I had to go see if it still actually held up. and god, does it EVER. this is such a brutal and heartbreaking novel, beginning in the last carefree summer that best friends and roommates Gene and Finny will experience before their final year at their boys' private school and their seemingly inevitable draft into WW2. although Gene is seethingly jealous of Finny's seemingly effortless charisma, popularity, confidence, and athletic prowess, the two boys are also inseparable - until a tragic injury changes the course of Finny's life forever. this book is a mess of unspoken pain, from the looming end of innocence on a global scale to the intimate ache of loving your best friend so, so much and having no healthy way to express it because you're a repressed little rich boy in the 1940s.

Deep as the Sky, Red as the Sea (Rita Chang-Eppig, 2023) - Chang-Eppig's debut novel follows the career of Chinese pirate Shek Yeung, also known as Zheng Yi Sao, immediately following the death of her husband, fearsome pirate Sheng Yi. you've probably seen a post or two about her floating around on this very hellsite, calling her a pirate queen and accompanied by this image:

Chang-Eppig isn't interested in portraying Shek Yeung as any kind of heroine or feminist icon; over and over again it's acknowledged that she's simply a woman who has survived massive hardships and will do whatever she needs to do to survive. manipulation? spying? extortion? torture? murder? you name it, she's done it, and she does not feel remorse. while the novel wasn't a knockout for me either in terms of plot or prose, it's nice to see an entry into the trend of "retelling" stories from history and mythology centered on women that isn't determined to justify every step a maligned woman ever made. Shek Yeung is what she is, and her story makes for a gritty, bloody adventure.

Victim (Andrew Boryga, 2024) - this book is pure sleazeball fun; if you've ever wondered what I consider a romp, this is it. Victim follows our manipulative king Javi Perez as he builds a writing career for himself by turning in one essay after another about racial discrimination that he never really experienced, inventing stories of hardship caused by racism and poverty from his college application essay to his school newspaper to the story that finally brings the whole lie crashing down when he stretches the truth too far. the novel is written like Javi's apology in the wake of getting #canceled, and while I do sometimes feel that this premise makes some of the writing seem a bit implausible (why would you admit that!!!) it's a fun setup for a scandal that would have been a bloodbath on the twitter of old. come get your mess!!!

Bad Girls (Camila Sosa Villada, trans. Kit Maude, 2022) - this is my first time reading Sosa Villada's work but OH BOY, do I need to seek out more. this is a skinty little novel following a dramatized account of the travesti (or transgender) women who live and sell sex in Córdoba, Argentina. the women build an unsteady but beautiful and magic-infused family under the protection of the ancient Auntie Encarna. the protagonist (who is named Camila Sosa Villada, no relation I'm sure) watches as her unconventional family grows, changes, and frays over time, struggling to find ways to stay afloat in a world that see them as disposable. Sosa Villada's turns of phrase are brilliant and searing, and she weaves fantastical elements so nimbly into her narrative that it's utterly believable to see women becoming animals and courting headless men in the streets of a modern city. strongly recommend for fans of Kai Cheng Thom's Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars.

Talkin' Up to the White Woman: Indigenous Women and Feminism (Aileen Morteon-Robinson, 2000) - this book serves as a scathing literature review indicting Australia's white women anthropologists and feminist scholars for the ways in which they've dehumanized and discredited Aboriginal women, stripping them of the right to be authorities of their own experiences and barring them from a white-centered feminist movement. Moreton-Robinson's account is excellent, contrasting the wok of white women academics with the accounts of Aboriginal women to reveal exactly how massive the disparities in understanding are. as a USAmerican previously aware of Australia's colonial history but unfamiliar with the specifics, it was jarring to discover exactly how similar the mechanism of colonial violence are between my country and Australia, with countless genocidal parallels to be drawn. one particular highlight of the book comes via my purchase of a 20th anniversary edition, which includes a new post-script by Moreton-Robinson in which she dissects and responds to various criticisms of the book at its time of release, taking several critics to task for the belittling tone they used to describe her work and the tools white feminists use to absolve themselves of blame in the face of critique from women of color. fascinating and thorough articulation of Moreton-Robinson's point, and deservedly blistering. I love when academics call each other out by name.

The End of Love: Racism, Sexism, and the Death of Romance (Sabrina Strings, 2024) - so the thing about this book is that there are really good PARTS. Strings is still an excellent historical writer, and I found a lot to appreciate in, for instance, the segments on the history of Black American pimp culture and the analysis of Playboy and Helen Gurley Brown's Sex and the Single Girl. the more personal segments, where Strings contorts herself to fit her own failed relationships into the narrative she's building, are decidedly less consistent in their quality, with some feeling like they would have been better off staying between Strings and her therapist. there's a long and convoluted digression about Sex and the City, and a strange anecdote towards the end in which String recounts a phone call with a friend's college-aged son who, String believes, was masturbating during the call. a yucky experience, to be certain, but I'm not sure it justifies Strings filing a police report against the youth and his mother, who she accuses of having groomed her on the son's behalf. she also casually drops in the same chapter that she considers herself pansexual because she's attracted to trans men in addition to cis men? idk man!!! this book was so uneven that I found myself genuinely questioning whether Strings' first book, Fearing the Black Body, is actually as excellent as I remember it being. I'm pretty sure it is, but god it sucks to get shaken so hard that you have to wonder!

The Diary of a Teenage Girl: An Account in Words and Pictures (Phoebe Gloeckner, 2002) - another book that I had to read for class, years ago! I read Diary of a Teenage Girl in one of my gender and women's studies classes in my undergrad, for a class with a title along the lines of Girlhood Stories in Fiction and Film. Gloeckner's novel (though heavily informed by her own life, she insists that it's a work of fiction) sees its young protagonist, Minnie, navigating a great deal of sex, alcohol, drugs in 1970s San Francisco. I started thinking about the book because I was listening to a trio of episodes of You're Wrong About in which Carmen Maria Machado guests to talk about the pervasive sham that is Go Ask Alice (great series, check it out) and I started thinking about Diary, which is so much less preachy and didactic and is, you know, actually drawn from a real teenage girl's diary, unlike Go Ask Alice, and lacking Alice's preachy didacticism. as a diary based on a real diary this book is largely lacking in any particular plot (the most consistent through line is Minnie's ongoing and tumultuous sexual relationship with her mother's 35 year old boyfriend), but if that's not a turn off then you'll find yourself rooting for Minnie to find her way all the way to the uncertain but ultimately optimistic conclusion.

One and Done (Frederick Smith, 2024) - okay, so. this is a romance novel that I picked up because I saw a review talking about how it's an incredibly realistic depiction of working at a university. now that's obviously an insane thing to look for in a romance novel, but I like romances, ESPECIALLY gay romances, and I work at a university, so I figured sure, I'll bite. spoiler alert: it's not great. I posted some examples of the prose here, and even if the two protagonists talked like actual human beings it wouldn't make up for the stale-ass plot or devastating lack of chemistry they have going for them. more like One and Glad to Be Done With This Book That Isn't Very Good, am I right, ladies?

Seduced (Virginia Henley, 1994) - guys, I'm gonna be so fucking real with you. this is the most batshit novel I've ever read, period, let alone the most batshit romance novel. this book was the winner of a poll I ran on patreon last month in which my wicked patreonites got to nominate romance novels of their choosing for my next reading project and voted amongst themselves to crown a winner, and against all odds and my own light attempts to sway the voters, Seduced won it all. this book has everything: a historical setting, a bold young lady disguising herself as her own brother, wildly unchecked orientalism, a murderous cousin, high society scandal, and some of the most torturous sex scenes I've ever encountered in my life. truly this write-up cannot do justice to what I have experienced; I've already promised by patreonites that I'll have to do a little youtube live in order to fully express the extent of my dissatisfaction.

and that was the month of August, babey!!!

[newlawsofphysics]

One of my favourite Alex Forbes interpretations is that he has NPD.

Alex evidently likes to garner attention. He does this in class, with his friends, with his father, etc. He is at one point, described by Nigel as an “egocentric megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur.” This is, of course, a typically pretentious description for a private school boy to make (I love you so much Nigel) but this is a perception of Alex.

Alex, upon hearing this description of himself, is immediately pissed off, and a lot more so than the average person with an average brain would be.

A lot of people with this personality disorder don’t know they’ve got it, and if they do know, they often won’t want to acknowledge it unless they have been through intensive therapy and are actively trying to improve their narcissistic behaviours.

They don’t want anyone to think there is anything wrong with them. This disorder, in many cases, comes with an excessive need for admiration and special treatment, an inherent belief that exemption from consequence is warranted, manipulative tendencies, a tendency to project blame onto others, a lack of empathy and a sense of superiority/inflated sense of self.

“You need to learn to respect authority,” Alex says to Nigel on the train.

“I don’t have time for this shit,” Alex says to his father in his office. He’s above it all.

Throughout the film, Alex rejects any and all blame for the crime he is accused of, and he projects that blame entirely onto Nigel throughout his narrative, although he had a lot more involvement than he let on.

“You’re absolutely fucked,” Alex hypocrisies to Nigel, (this was bloody amusing) to which Nigel tells him he knows Alex fucked Susan’s dead corpse and Alex says, “I didn’t do it.”

By the end of the film, we discover that he has taken Susan’s skull and fulfilled the duty Nigel said was theirs, Templar knights and God-given rights, the whole nine yards.

He shows no remorse for the things that have happened at this point, although earlier in the film he appears to. Alex manipulated Sally Rowe and gathered her sympathy for his cause. I would say him being a malignant narcissist is an interesting exegesis.

You gorgeous, gorgeous fucking freak of nature.

(I’m sorry if this reads like a shoddy essay, I typed it out in ten minutes with a vanilla coke by my side.)

[blorger]

I have a confession to make: I love Pansy Parkinson.

I love her little snub nose, I love her big DH moment (even though as readers we're supposed to hate it) but, most of all, I love her because jkr hates her.

I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this either, we have it straight from the horse's mouth:

I loathe Pansy Parkinson. I don't love Draco but I really dislike her. She's every girl who ever teased me at school. She's the Anti-Hermione. I loathe her. Yeah, sorry! Sidetracked there by my latent bitterness.

("PotterCast Interviews J.K. Rowling, part two." PotterCast #131, 24 December 2007)

I recently found myself wondering how, for a self-professed Pansy stan, I sure know very little about her as a character. If we take aside the fact that I derive psychic joy from being a contrarian (especially when it comes to jkr and her garbage views), is book Pansy actually an interesting character or do I just like the Pansy that the fandom's collective unconscious created? Who even is Pansy, really?

Because I'm me and there's no problem that can't be answered by amassing huge amounts of informations, I went ahead and prepared

a Persuasive Primer to Pansy Parkinson

PART 1: PANSY'S PERSONAGE

The character of Pansy Parkinson has been present in the Harry Potter series since book 1. Her name shows up briefly during Harry's sorting since she's close to him in the class list but her first real appearance occurs during the Remembrall Incident, where jkr sets up two of her character's mainstays: her looks and her meanness.

This very first description of Pansy's face as severe and pitiless-looking is perhaps the kindest one we get in the books, since the only other times Harry, our narrator, bothers to describe her appearance he calls her pug-faced, which incidentally is where we as a fandom (and, clearly, the HP movies casting directors) got the idea that she has a snub nose.

Other than these vague and unkind descriptors, Pansy's looks are left to our imagination; the brunette bob she is well known for is a movie creation and the only other description relating to her appearance is that of the robes she wears for the Yule Ball in book 4, which are very frilly and pale pink.

As any scholar of JKR Studies worth their salt can tell you, jkr is a consummate misogynist who loathes pink and only uses it in order to give a negative connotation to something/someone; pink=girly, which is bad, and frilly=superfluously, ostentatiously girly, which is the worst possible thing a female character in the jkr extended universe can be. jkr has a lot of opinions on what constitutes an acceptable performance of femininity and the character of Pansy Parkinson exists to exemplify the complete opposite of that.

PART 2: A PERNICIOUS PERSONALITY

What can we learn from Pansy's tone? Firstly that she is shrill and annoying, as she shrieks and screeches; in her role as part of Draco's entourage she's both a mindless follower who simpers and an active participant who spreads gossip and maligns by whispering and giggling mean-spiritedly.

jkr created Pansy in the image of the girls who bullied her in her youth so Pansy has an entourage all of her own, an unnamed gang of Slytherin girls (they're always referred to as such, no further description provided) who appear in a greek chorus-like fashion to herald the bullying of Hermione (Ideal Woman and self-insert supreme).

So, what can we learn from Pansy's insults? well, for one that she doesn't like "fat little crybabies", as shown in the excerpt above. Furthermore, when she's not parroting Draco's insults, Pansy shows a single minded preoccupation with the life and looks of one Hermione Jean Granger

(from GoF, Pansy has Opinions of Rita's Skeeter's aricle)

(from GoF, Pansy is there to show us that Hermione was Beautiful All Along)

(from GoF, Pansy helps Rita Skeeter with her character piece)

(from GoF, Hermione suffers the fallout from Rita's article, Pansy is vigilant to any and all Hermione news)

We'll look more closely at Pansy and Hermione's relationship in a short while but for now let us focus on more of Pansy's barbs; I would like to take to this moment to highlight the following:

(from OoTP, Draco's gang shows up to the Gryffindor quidditch practice to do some heckling)

I find it notable that the only time Pansy insults the looks of someone who isn't Hermione it's when she makes a racist microaggression towards Angelina Johnson, one of the very few black characters in the books. While this is unquestionably vile behaviour, I struggle with interpreting jkr's intentions: does jkr even know and/or understand microaggressions? Is Pansy's insult even meant to be interpreted as racist? Does racism as we know it even exist in the hp universe?

Personally, I've always gotten the impression that the wizarding world was meant to represent a post-racial society in a very United Colors of Benetton, "I don't see race" kind of way that is very typical of nineties pseudo-liberalism, no doubt to give more space to her blood purity system (and because someone like jkr has no interest in even mentioning the pervasive effects of racism in society). Still, let's not discount what is no doubt one of Pansy's lowest moments in the books, regardless of the reading we choose vis à vis jkr's intent.

To cleanse our palates, here's a more benign insult:

(from OoTP, Harry and Cho's date is but a collection of unfortunate moments)

While I'd put the Cedric reference pretty high on the Insensitivity Scale, I find myself reluctantly entertained by Pansy's drive-by read, especially because Harry IS a garbage boyfriend to Cho.

What else do we know about Pansy's personality from the books? For one, that she likes unicorns but considers showing it outright to be undignified:

(from PoA)

We know that Pansy is made a Prefect in OotP and, while the books never specify the parameters used to choose Prefects and Hermione implies Pansy wasn't chosen for her smarts ("she's thicker than a concussed troll" is the actual quote, though Hermione's objectivity is questionable), we can assume that, at the very least, she is somewhat of a leader among the Slytherin girls (on account of the aforementioned gang).

Finally, we never hear Pansy's opinion on blood purity although it's safe to assume that it's not terribly progressive on account of the company she keeps.

PART 3: PASSIONATE PARAMOUR

While the books never state conclusively wether Pansy and Draco are ever a couple (in fact, neither of them says a word about the other in the books), we know both from statements jkr has made irl and from the in-universe characters' opinions that we are supposed to treat them as a couple of sorts. The evidence for that is as follows:

Draco is implied to exagerate the extent of his Buckbeak injury in order to garner sympathy from Pansy in PoA:

Pansy is Draco's date to GoF's Yule Ball

the infamous carriage scene in HBP:

and

and

Ron assumes that the boasting witnessed by Harry on the train was done in order to impress Pansy.

and

Regardless of wether you want to read their relationship as romantic or not, Draco and Pansy clearly hang out together a lot from the ages of 13 onwards; Pansy is often mentioned as part of Draco's posse together with Crabbe and Goyle and she's further shown as an active participant in his various schemes, most notably in the popularisation of Weasley is Our King:

(from OotP)

Pansy appears to have a genuine interest in Draco's wellbeing as shown by her concern when Draco is injured by Buckbeak in PoA:

and

Pansy if further shown to be understandably upset when Harry guts Draco like a fish in HBP:

So we can conclude that, although we have no idea of Draco's feelings, Pansy feels authentic affection for Draco.

PART 4: HERMIONE HATER?

Pansy is positioned as sort of the Female Draco: while Draco's job is to antagonize Harry and Ron, Pansy is there to deliver the Girl insults to Hermione, the Girl One of the trio. While jkr's intention was no doubt to paint Pansy as a straightforward bully, her singleminded interest in Hermione displays the same pigtail-pulling connotations as Draco's behaviour throughout the books.

Their first exchange comes by courtesy of Hermione, who hits her with her trademark condescension, which seems to specifically drive Slytherins mad like nothing else (the first "mudblood of the books comes as a direct response to one such occasion):

(from GoF, Pansy enjoys the potter stinks badges, hermione begs to disagree)

Following this exchange, we start to see Pansy engage in your typical Mean Girl behavior, which, apart from the preoccupation with her looks shown above, also includes laughing at Hermione's expense:

(from GoF, Hermione was hit by a stray curse and her teeth grew to a comical size)

and

(from GoF, Pansy shows hermione the infamous "harry is in love with Hermione" article by Rita Skeeter, which features a quote from her)

While we never see Hermione respond in kind (since her preferred method of dealing with bullies is the could shoulder), we know that this behavior definitely colors her opinion of Pansy

(from OotP, Hermione is displeased when Pansy is made Prefect)

and

(from OotP, Fred and George's departure from school left a vacuum in the prankster hierarchy and all manners of students jumped up to fill the spot)

All in all, we don't have a very precise read on the relationship between the two: do Pansy and Hermione exchange barbs whenever they meet? are they enemies or is Hermione a sainted martyr suffering in silence (on account of her moral superiority)? Just how closely do they parallel Harry and Draco's rivalry? You decide.

PART 5: PANSY'S POLEMICAL POSITION

Finally, we come to Pansy's Big Moment

(from DH, Pansy says the quiet part out loud and is banished for it)

During the Battle of Hogwarts, Pansy displays the ultimate act of Evil (in jkr's eyes) by not behaving Bravely when faced with an impossible decision. To give context, Voldemort has just given the students of Hogwarts a way out of the whole mess:

Personally, I hate this scene. Pansy doesn't know shit about just how essential Harry is to ending the whole shebang; furthermore, she's just a scared student living out her own version of the trolley problem and yet the narrative frames her (imho) understandable reaction not only as unforgivable cowardice on her part but has a condemnation of Slytherin house as a whole.

I hate how the Hogwarts student body is alternatively portrayed as a mindless horde whose opinion can be swayed by the faintest of rumors (as seen by public opinion turning on Harry in CoS, GoF and OotP) and as a prop to show the Right Way. The Hogwarts student body is essentially pulling a Spartacus moment except their reactions are somehow neatly divided into Houses: it's not some individuals who choose to react bravely and motivate the rest, its the Gryffindors as a whole, moving like a single-minded hive, who influence the other single-minded hives of Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaw. The individuality of all of these people is ignored in service of an impactful scene and the one person who shows a dissenting thought is summarily removed (together with the Evil Slytherin hive, which did not express any opinions but is nonetheless blackened by association).

jkr's bullshit black-and-white worldview rears its ugly head here and what could have been a genuinely moving moment of student solidarity - showing people from different backgrounds coming to the defense of Hogwarts together - becomes a condemnation of those who dare oppose the righteous horde instead.

In a moment in the books that feels very biblical, the non-believer who dares doubt the Savior is shunned and summarily dealt with (which opens up a whole can of worms about the Jesus-ification of Harry that I'm not prepared to go into). Pansy is merely a prop in this scene, a stand-in for the whole of her house, yet I appreciate her very human reaction: she's the only person in that room to show individuality, expressing the fear and doubt that most people would feel when placed in a similar situation.

I appreciate how Pansy goes against the grain in one of my least favorite scenes in the books but I acknowledge that her big moment is not really about her, nor does it tell us anything about her character that we didn't already know: All Slytherins Are Evil and the best they can hope for is to just be slimy and opportunistic (à la Slughorn) instead of straight up villains.

PART 6: PERSONAL PERORATION (or: I really shot myself in the foot with the whole alliteration thing)

So, what did we learn kids? First of all that the Pansy in the books, as intend by jkr, is an irredeemable, uninteresting shitstain, less of a fully-formed character and more like a vaguely defined caricature of a Mean Girl.

While my instinct is to go against this cartoonish portrayal and attempt to read some complexity in her thoughts and motivations, I acknowledge that, to some, Pansy is forever tainted by the harsh way in which she's depicted and therefore will forever remain unlikeable. Personally, I find myself drawn by characters with seemingly nebulous motivations and, since I don't share jkr's shitty deterministic worldview, I can see scenarios where she grows as a person; I enjoy seeing different explorations of her characters in fics just like I enjoy reading about her fellow b-team villains in general.

Choose the path that sparks the most joy for you and live your truths my friends, ignore this primer completely or allow it to change (or reinforce) your opinion of Pansy, your feelings are valid regardless.

xoxo

[marabarl-and-marlbara]

Hello Mara, i follow you for a while and i saw lots of your fanarts of narutaru, i became interested in it and a few weeks ago i decided to finally read it. Honestly, i loved it, (even if the ending was kind of sudden) and now its one of my favorites mangas.

I wanted to ask whats your thoughts on narutaru, and what made you like it. Its not a popular manga so its so hard so find others opinios and analysis, so i decided to ask you since its the reason i decided to read it.

hi anonymous, i just got power back from the storm; trees smashed several places around me;

if you asked me several years ago i could give you a better answer but present-day-me is fairly far removed from really having much passion for narutaru except holding on-to some memories of what i think i liked about it: it was a series i found very early back on maybe / b/ or /a/ on 4chan, likely in a thread about dark manga, and narutaru would be mentioned as coming across as some childish pokemon-esque comic that then turns really depressing--and i always remembered it being referred to as exactly shadow star narutaru, so i always remembered it as shadow star and associated it with the goofy little star guy--but i could never make myself read it because it was insanely boring and the art was incredibly lame, at the time; then in my self-harm spiral i read it (easily over a decade later) and i fell in love with it, because i thought that: it was a series utterly and completely empty and exhibited a real evil at its core that had no pretense to it or strive to be that, just that it was--like there is a permeable funk or mold crept through the architecture of narutaru more obviously shown through all the characters wrapt around some dumb moody issue (akira is the case study here), but shadow star never seemed something 'evil' because of those story-beats that are paint-by-numbers in misery-porn; take, for example akira explaining the connection with the shadow dragon, and how empty of a thing they seem and how their 'link' is like a vampiric one where a draining of the soul must occur and drain out through the human and into the queer little dragon thing when at perfect unity between the two, and how akira is nervously at complete resistance to letting this happen because (though she thinks she wants to die) there is something repulsive about having that precious self occult away into a moronic wall-eyed lump of clay ensof; then hiroko, my favorite, named as a shell heap and a good foil to akira because she is willing to completely drain off into oni and undergoes this malignant 'truth' there there:s an unreality to her life and her needing to keep living and her needing to be warped by unrealities that have been hammered down into strange forms of parent and friend and enemy and such-and-such; and, foil to it all are the latter characters who have completely been devoured by the shadow star, and sheol itself--all not really portrayed with a heavy dilemma or mood or misery, but a just-so attitude that "this is all completely empty, and that is completely fine;" it is a story not-so evil because of some subversion of good or resistance to good, but an evil because there is absolutely nothing inside of narutaru. if it seems a house it is only hiding decrepit flooring and rotting structural support, and if it seems even that then it is even less-than. plus, although i'd never watched an episode of the anime, it has a really nice ED theme that i liked to listen to during a breakup.

i was put off talking about it for some time because, may-be because of those surface Miseries, it seemed to invite "shared misery," sometimes over the self-harm, but also the 'infamous' censored rape-murder volume, and it felt like the last thing i wanted to invite into my life were other people sharing a love with me over images of rape and messages about how beautiful it was--something about all that felt rotten and against the shadow star, that there is something i just dislike about placing grace onto 'antithesis' of what is commonly good (rape bad? no, rape beautiful!) and that (and what i still like about narutaru) is its found-grace in an absence of values either good or evil--as from primordial churning chaos before something were, there were enough grace for creation to come-from, and for it to return-to;

but i might also just be a contrarian and don't like seeing myself in other people. didn:t go to church yesterday and just drove around with my mom; take care.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Secret Service: "Use the Gate." Jimmy Carter: "Hold my Peanuts." Life is full of obstacles. Pres. Carter showed us how to jump them like a boss. RIP #JimmyCarter

* * * *

Jimmy Carter’s final gift to America.

December 29, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Dec 30, 2024

One of the most decent men ever to hold the office of President of the United States passed away in his 100th year on December 29, 2024. I am not a historian, so I will leave the assessment of his presidency and equally consequential post-presidency to others who are better equipped to make those judgments. But one does not need to be a historian or student of politics to know that President Jimmy Carter was a good man whose decency acted as a balm for a troubled nation following a time of crisis.

It impossible to reflect on Carter’s decency, humanity, and humility without experiencing a foreboding sense of dread about the lack of integrity and amorality of the incoming presidency. Many tributes make oblique references to that contrast. President and Dr. Jill Biden issued the following statement:

[T]o all of the young people in this nation and for anyone in search of what it means to live a life of purpose and meaning – the good life – study Jimmy Carter, a man of principle, faith, and humility. He showed that we are great nation because we are a good people – decent and honorable, courageous and compassionate, humble and strong.

If there is any lesson in the life and passing of President Carter, it is that we are a good people capable of electing good leaders. We should not surrender to a false sense of inevitability that lies and narcissism are permanent fixtures of the American political landscape.

Over the coming weeks, I will highlight commentary regarding President Carter that deserves the attention of readers of this newsletter, and I invite readers to use the Comment section to post links to non-paywalled articles.

As of Sunday evening, James Fallows has published a freely accessible version of an article he previously published in The Atlantic. See James Fallows, Breaking the News (Substack), Jimmy Carter: Unlucky President, Lucky Man.

Fallows’ article is a bracing reminder of how much has changed since Carter’s presidency. Fallows reminds us:

In office [Carter] also had the challenge of trying to govern a nearly ungovernable America: less than two years after its humiliating withdrawal from Saigon, in its first years of energy crisis and energy shortage, on the cusp of the “stagflation” that has made his era a symbol of economic dysfunction. It seems hard to believe now, but it’s true: The prime interest rate in 1980, the year Carter ran for reelection, exceeded 20 percent.

Imagine running for re-election when 20% interest rates put home ownership out of reach for all but the wealthiest Americans.

And the political landscape in 1980 is unrecognizable today:

The South was then the Democrats’ base, and the West Coast was hostile territory. Jimmy Carter swept all states of the old Confederacy except Virginia, and lost every state west of the Rockies except Hawaii. In Electoral College calculations, the GOP started by counting on California.

The Democrats held enormous majorities in both the Senate and the House. Carter griped about dealing with Congress, as all presidents do. But under Majority Leader Robert Byrd, the Democrats held 61 seats in the Senate through Carter’s time. In the House, under Speaker Tip O’Neill, they had a margin of nearly 150 seats (not a typo). The serious legislative dealmaking was among the Democrats.

Writer and journalist Steven Beschloss published a tribute to Jimmy Carter in America, America (Substack), Jimmy Carter's Enduring Humanity. Beschloss writes:

At a time when too much of our political sphere is poisoned by cruelty and hate and malignant narcissism—and where too many self-described Christians appear driven by grievance and self-righteous aggression—the good works of Jimmy Carter offer a refreshing antidote and a necessary reminder of the power of humanity.

Beschloss quotes Jimmy Carter on the role of immigrants in America’s tradition of service to others. Carter said,

America is the most diverse or heterogeneous nation, comprised primarily by immigrants who were not afraid of an unpredictable future in a strange land. Almost all of them had great need when they arrived here and were then inspired to be of help to others. This concept of service to others is still a crucial element in the American character and has always prevailed in overcoming challenges and correcting societal mistakes.

“Service to others” as a defining trait of an immigrant nation. The difference between Carter's and Trump's views regarding immigration could not be more stark.

There is much more to be said, but I would like to end on a personal recollection of the unfairness of media coverage of Carter’s presidency. I was in law school as Carter’s presidency sputtered and groaned under the weight of serial international crises: the oil crisis, the Iranian hostage crisis, and international recession.

Carter worked tirelessly to navigate crises that were beyond the control of any global leader. The media—recently emboldened and vindicated by reporting on the Watergate scandal—was merciless. For understandable reasons, the media no longer trusted American presidents. Journalists were keenly aware that the road to Pulitzers and lasting fame ran through aggressive reporting on the president.

Even when Carter did everything right, he could do nothing right—at least according to the media. When the media learned that Carter shooed away a swamp rabbit from his boat while fishing in a Georgia pond, the story became front-page news on the Washington Post, New York Times, and all three broadcast news networks—at a time when Carter was successfully negotiating the SALT treaty limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The “killer rabbit” story dominated major media outlet coverage for a week—often with the self-serving angle, “President Carter can’t shake bad press over the killer rabbit story.” Carter couldn’t shake bad press over the rabbit story because the media had settled on a negative narrative about Carter—and they wouldn’t let it go.

[Sigh. Even today, on the day of his passing, the NYTimes has an above-the-fold story, “That Time President Carter Was Menaced by a ‘Killer Rabbit’ - The New York Times.”]

Watergate broke journalism—and the profession has never recovered. As will become plain in the coming weeks, the re-assessment of Carter’s presidency will show that he was a strong president who accomplished great things. For example, the Camp David Accords created a framework for peace between Israel and Egypt that remains in place today.1

At the time, a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt seemed impossible. Carter achieved the impossible because sworn enemies put their trust in Jimmy Carter. Few presidents can claim an achievement solidly built on their universally recognized reputation for integrity.

President Jimmy Carter was a good and decent man whose presence elevated the office of the presidency.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[theculturedmarxist]

thoughts on the democrat party

Personally I think the Dems are doing "their best" with Biden. From what I can see the shape that American society has taken due to corporate monopolization has influenced the party in such a way that it has divested itself from the necessary talent to either govern or develop a new intellectual framework to deal with emerging circumstances. Biden is the best they've got because party power has been monopolized by all the geriatric party bosses, who have spent decades weeding out any potential party rivals and self selecting for mediocrity and the kind of intellectual narrowness necessary to carry the nebulous Dem party line.

The Dems have been outfoxed at every turn in spite of their comparative popularity to the Reps because as awful as it is, the Reps at least have a vision of the future and how to get their, which the Dems absolutely lack, and you can't beat something with nothing. So the Dems default to the "norms" set by the Republicans whenever the Ds manage to get power, which only serves the Republican agenda as eventually they'll just get in power again and pick up where they left off.

Biden is actually the best they can do, because they have no one of any vision to energize the base, and even if they did they don't have the clout to either direct the party or attract investment from donors. The fact that an octogenarian with dementia is at the head of the party and nothing can be done about it points to how serious the problems in the party have become.

>At what point do the Dems just collapse from the institutional rot you're describing?

I'm not sure, really. I haven't really thought about it.

I suppose we might be seeing the first indications of such a collapse now. I think the marks of a healthy institution are for it to a) be able to identify, incorporate, and cultivate new talent, b) to have an internal well of theoretical and practical knowledge to draw from, and c) to utilize the previous two in novel ways in order to work towards some kind of future ideal and/or to deal with novel circumstances, both benign and malignant.

It's much more complicated than just Trump as a person, but him and the circumstances surrounding him are a novel, malignant circumstance as far as the Democratic Party is concerned, and one that it had failed to deal with after 8 years of wrangling with it. Bernie Sanders is another facet of this malignant novelty, and the party's manner of dealing with him is ironically why they're incapable of dealing with Trump. As far as the party runners are concerned, Sanders and other members of the 'progressives" in the party are a tumor to be combated. Even their mild reforms run counter to party orthodoxy and are not to be tolerated, and anywhere they might seriously challenge that orthodoxy, like we saw when they prevailed in Nevada, they have to be crushed. They're allowed to showboat and make their little tirades, but when it comes to any sort of actual challenge to party policy there are various means of chastening them, like we saw recently with AIPAC crushing the "squad" and making AOC cry.

So this rigidity has made adaptation and innovation basically impossible. There's just the status quo, and if you want to get anywhere in the party you have to serve that status quo with a practically religious devotion. The party is now overflowing with empty suits like Kamala and Buttigieg, the sort of mediocrities that have no real values, no real intellect, and whose only talent is being able to say with some level of conviction whatever currently serves the party's interests. Unfortunately for them, the party's interests are diametrically opposed to the general population's interests, so while they might be able to get up in front of a tv and deliver a speech someone wrote for them which will make PMC types on twitter and the MSNBC hosts they follow swoon, there's nothing there to attract average people and convince them to vote for them. They've heard it all before and because there's very little material difference to them in being fucked by a Republican or Democrat president, they don't really care.

So the crisis now is that they have nothing to beat Trump with, and no way to fix this situation. Even if they had the talent to fall back on, Biden himself represents a significant amount of clout within the party itself, and the party's convention rules mean that all the delegates they gave him are his to do with as he pleases, and for whatever reason refuses to give them up, probably because he's a) a bastard and b) his progressing dementia is bringing out all his worst qualities, and making the magnanimous play for the benefit of others is not something that Biden would ever, ever do.

Right now we're witnessing all the powers and interests behind the party trying to come to grips with these circumstances. The young, attractive party members that would be worth funding like AOC are unacceptable because the donors won't accept their politics, so giving them actual power within and over the party is out of the question. The old party hacks like Clinton or Pelosi wouldn't accept this either because it would threaten their own power and security. Anyone that would be acceptable to the party bosses lacks the ability to attract enough sections of the party donors and voters to be viable. They lack the charisma to appeal to the people, and Obama's ability to line them up behind themselves with "it's me or the pitchforks" type of rhetoric.

However this election shakes out, it won't change the fact that the Democratic party is in the grip of a small number of extremely powerful party bosses that can't be dislodged for various reasons, and that as long as they're alive they're going to do whatever it takes to maintain their positions. As long as they do, no one of any real talent is going to make it anywhere in the party, and as long as that's true it's only going to continue to stagnate. And even if Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, and the rest of the bosses died tomorrow, that still wouldn't bring much effect because the ideology of the bourgeoisie behind the party is rigidly devoted to the status quo out of political and economic necessity. With all that said, their party remains viable only as long as the status quo remains viable, and that is quickly becoming not the case. They've been able to indulge in this stagnancy only because they've been able to minimize or externalize all the worst effects of it, but between climate change, the ascendancy of BRICS, the war in Ukraine they're losing, the war in Palestine they're losing, the cold war over Taiwan they're losing, the ongoing COVID pandemic, the incipient Avian Flu pandemic, and many, many other very severe problems developing in and around the country, that indulgence becomes increasingly untenable.

So to sum up, we might be witnessing the early stages of an ongoing and possibly irreversible collapse at this very moment.

[leviathan-supersystem]

some thoughts on the right-libertarian discourse on greed, namely the whole "stupid communists are against greed, but they don't realize that greed, ie. self-interest, is actually good, and an inevitable part of human nature" talking point:

so like, on the face of it, treating "greed" and "self interest" as synonymous is obviously moronic. greed is a type of self-interest, sure, but most people would not define all self-interest as "greedy". brushing your teeth is obviously in your own self-interest but nobody is going to be like "wow look at this greedy motherfucker brushing their teeth". no, obviously when people talk about greed they're talking about when people act in their self-interest specifically in ways that harm the interests of others, when someone acts only with regard to themselves in ways that harm the group overall.

to give a hypothetical, if there's a birthday party, it's not greedy for someone to get a piece of cake, even though this is obviously in their self-interest, it's greedy for them to go back for fourths or fifths before everyone else has gotten a piece, thus causing others to go without. and by pursuing their short-term self interest in a way that does not take into account the interests of others, they harm their long-term self interests, since after that people might not want to invite them to future parties.

so the whole "greed is human nature" argument ignores that while there are of course circumstances for every person in which they will act in their self-interest without regard for the well-being of others, there are also circumstances for every person where they will be willing to make sacrifices to their short-term self interest for the greater benefit of the group. largely this depends on how someone feels about the other people in this scenario, we'd probably be more willing to make a personal sacrifice to help our best friends than to help a stranger, or our worst enemy.

and of course usually this can still be modeled in terms of long-term self-interest, but that said, there have been examples of people giving their lives to save the lives of other people they truly care about, and i think it's pretty hard to model that in terms of long-term self interest. but at any rate, in most cases all that's really necessary to avoid acting in ways that anyone might call "greedy" is to just consider long-term self-interest and not just short-term self-interest, to consider how making sacrifices to our own short-term self-interest for the greater good of our community benefits us in the long term because we benefit from our community continuing to function.

okay, so we've established that "greed" is not the same as self-interest, but rather, a specific form of malignant self-interest, short-term self-interest pursued in ways harmful to the community, and, consequently, usually to one's own long-term self interest. great. but the thing is, libertarians/ancaps/objectivists/etc ultimately do acknowledge this distinction.

the real disagreement between marxists and righ-libertarians isn't "one thinks humankind can exist without greed/self interest, one knows that greed/self interest is human nature", though of course right-libertarians are very fond of this framing since it's flattering to themselves, it's that marxists and right-libertarians fundamentally disagree on where the distinction between benign self-interest and greed is. see this tweet which is what got me thinking about this in the first place:

okay so do you see what he did there! first he talks as if greed and self-interest are fundamentally the same, but then he changes gears and talks about how greedy communists are with clear disdain. almost as if greed isn't just "self-interest", but rather, self-interest to the detriment of others, most especially, theft. the most direct and overt form of prioritizing one's own self-interest with callous disregard for others.

and the thing is, both marxism and right-libertarianism propose vast expansions to the category of "theft", propose that many acts which are currently considered benign are in fact malignant acts of greed/theft, namely that marxism proposes that the profit reaped by landlords and owners is theft, and right-libertarians propose that taxation is theft.

but while marxism arrives at this conclusion by looking at society as it exists, looking to see where it's dysfunctional, and drawing conclusions about how it could be improved, right-libertarianism bases itself not on material analysis but rather deonotological principles which are derived from nothing. the "NAP" is true because it's true because it's true, don't question it, don't ask them to provide evidence that it's a viable foundation for a functional society. and certainly don't ask why it's "aggression" for a tenant to stay on a property when they can't make rent, but it's not aggression when the landlord calls the cops to drag them into the street.

like, the funny thing is right-libertarianism proposes that basically every society on earth is wildly wrong about the morality of taxation, but also proposes that all existing land ownership claims are legitimate, even though basically every one of them, worldwide, can be traced back to either feudal land disputes, which were resolved through violence, or colonization, which also occurred through violence. fundamentally, the history of existing land ownership claims is so drenched in violence that the notion that they're somehow one of the only things society as a whole got right is ludicrous, especially coming from people who claim their ideology is based on a "non aggression principle."

[oathbreakerapologist]

Sortie Sad Sack Thought Journal 4: This One's Actually about Sad Sack I Promise

Subtitled The Haunting and Perplexing Question of the Ontological Status of Garv.

I'm finally gonna turn to a question that has been subject to significant debate (if you accept several arguments I've had with myself while in the shower as "significant debate"). What if Garv isn't, like, just another guy? What if he isn't really a person in the world of Sad Sack at all?

Okay, to explain that a bit better: Garv interacts with the rest of the crew, the plot, and the world in some weird ways (weird, that is, in the sense of inexplicable, not just Garv's usual Messed Up Guy weirdness). Among other things, a few incidents come to mind as particularly unusual:

Garv's notable absence from the epilogue of SADS #1.

Garv's ability to gain access to the warehouse in SADS #5 (particularly, how he obtained the key from Jake).

The disappearance of Garv's body in SADS #5.

There's a reading of these events that says Garv doesn't actually exist. It's a kind of speculative and somewhat silly thing to consider, but I promise I mean this seriously. Maybe he's not a guy! Maybe Garv, as he's portrayed in SADS, is merely a representation of an idea, or a motive, or a sort of shadow self of another character.

Question 4: What is Garv if not an actual person?

If that were true, his depiction as just another member of the group suggests a certain textual unreliability—I promised this wasn't going to become about Sortie; it merely lingers as an elephant in the room—which is not out of the question. While SADS gives fewer reasons than Sortie to challenge the idea that the events that occur within it occur (approximately) in the way that they depicted, I don't think that's any grounds to reject unreliable depiction. So that's one layer of plausibility to the Garv Unrealist position. But I'm getting ahead of myself—I ought to make clearer (at least two of) the positions we might take about Garv.

Garv Realism. Garv is a person in the same way as any other member of the SADS cast. Unusual Events 1–3 must be explained through circumstances not depicted in SADS.

Garv Unrealism. Garv is not a person. Garv, as he is depicted, is a representation of something intangible: an idea, a motivation, an id, a shadow self, some combination thereof, or something else.

The shadow self idea is particularly interesting, both because it explains some things about Unusual Events 1–3 and because it might illuminate some things about a character who remains (in my opinion) somewhat difficult to parse. That character is Jake. I think I want to read Garv as a shadow self of Jake. Here's why.

Jake is, in my opinion, the character whose motive for involvement in the events of SADS is the least clear. Of course, SADS #1 is his own deeply personal revenge moment, and it's obvious from the fact that he initiated the events of SADS in that way that he is, in some way, deeply messed up. But... what is that way? Essentially everyone else in SADS does a very poor job at hiding their own personal damage. Mal has the world's most malignant white knight complex. Stone's an alcoholic with abandonment issues that have been festering for approximately three decades. Sal... well. You know.

But what the fuck is Jake's problem? How'd he get here?

I'm not sure that I can explain that. But reading Garv as a shadow self of Jake does a shockingly good job of explaining that. It actually makes a lot of things click into place: why does this seemingly normal type-A guy initiate a series of torture-murders?

Because Jake, the normal type-A guy, didn't do that. The set of personality traits we attribute to Jake are incongruous with his role in the narrative because there are several relevant traits missing, because those traits are attributed to Garv. Garv is utterly incapable of hiding how much of a fucking creep he is because that is literally all he is. He's a mere representation of one facet of who Jake is as a person. To be clear, I'm not talking about a true split personality or a dissociative identity disorder—I use "shadow self" here as a looser term, and by it I mean a loose aggregate of the traits that exist within a person but which conflict with other traits that seem to define them. By reading Garv as a shadow self of Jake, we assert: Jake is what we see from Jake plus what we see from Garv.

When you graft Garv's personality onto Jake, you suddenly get almost exactly the sort of person who would initiate a series of torture-murders with very specific rules and conditions.

A Garv Unrealist reading has a lot to say about SADS #5. In that reading, the initial conflict between Jake and Garv is actually an internal conflict within Jake that unfolds as he finally confronts the tension between his sadistic impulses and his stringent moral/behavioral code. The confrontation that follows is, in some significant way, metaphorical—though Sal's physical appearance in Sortie implies it did unfold somewhat similarly to the way that it is depicted.

(Does it, actually? A question for another post.)

In that reading, of course, we don't have to account for how Garv got into the warehouse. Garv is Jake; Jake has the key. In that reading, we don't have to account for why Garv's body disappears at the end of SADS #5. Garv isn't embodied; Garv never died.

It's a deeply interesting reading of SADS, certainly, and it's not insignificant that it does answer at least two pretty big questions. But is that enough to accept Garv Unrealism? It comes at a pretty significant cost—there's a lot we must re-interpret, and a lot we must accept as unreliable depiction or metaphor, in order to accept Garv Unrealism. Is the price worth the payoff?

(For what it's worth, I think I'm still in the Garv Realist camp.)

[ultraericthered]

Another King Magnifico Post

A common criticism of Wish is that King Magnifico, like pretty much every character in the film, doesn't seem to have any solid motivation driving his actions in the story, and that the backstory we're given doesn't sufficiently set up any such motivation. I partially agree, but partially disagree. It's not that motivation for Magnifico's villainy isn't there in the story, it's that the presentation of it in the movie that fails because ironic enough for a simple fairy tale, they overcomplicate it.

King Magnifico's motivations, made simple:

Keep his crown, his power, and his iron-fisted control over Rosas and the system of wishes he created so that he may continue to make his own wishes come true, even if at the expense of all other wishes, and his people's reverence of him and dependence on him endures.

King Magnifico's motivations post-forbidden magic book:

Still that, but with the added feature of him being so drunk on power that he wants to take and break wishes, along with Star itself, to add to that power with which he'll quell any dissent to his rule and re-subjugate the dissenters, and in this state of mind, he would rather see his kingdom razed to the ground than relinquish that power.

King Magnifico as seen in the movie:

Safeguard all wishes in Rosas because he sincerely believes in the value of wishes due to his tragic backstory, so that THAT will never happen again and no one in the kingdom he built will suffer the sort of trauma and heartbreak that he did...but he's a little too tight with how he asserts his control, is too paranoid, biased, close-minded and self-interested in how he judges which wishes to grant and which ones to not grant, hoards so many ungranted wishes away for their magical blessings, and doesn't simply return the wishes he won't grant because reasons, possibly because he fears pulling away that carrot on a stick would disillusion people with him and he'd lose his relevence, attention, adulation, and respect. 'Cause he's a malignant narcissist who is so comically in love with his own self-image that he has a God Complex/Savior Complex that makes him more arrogant and power-hungry, don'tchya know. But he also loves his wife, wants to protect her too, and will trust her judgment when she advises him to not go to extremes...except when he doesn't. And when Star is in Rosas spreading a new magical power that isn't his, Asha acts out in rebellion against his rule and system, and the people all start to question him rather than give him the blind respect, adoration, and complacency he feels so entitled to, he spirals into madness and villainy to the point of opening up the forbidden magic book...which drives him to madness and villainy even more, and once he's drunk on this power and learns that breaking wishes enhances it, he wants to break wishes and add Star itself to his power and make everyone all sad and disspirited forever with no more wishes so that they'll stop resisting and he can oppress them without consequence. Because he's evil, has lost all good in him, and nothing about the character that was set up in the first half of the story really matters anymore.

Where was I? Oh yeah!

Had the movie shared a fuller account of Magnifico's backstory with us at the very beginning, and then alluded to it at only a few key points in the story to clearly link how Magnifico presently percieves something and feels about something with what happened in his past that set him down his path to becoming the bad man he is now, and otherwise just played straight the simplified motivations of the first two paragraphs up there, his characterization and descent into full-on villainy would've been all the stronger and easier to follow for it.

[chromatic-lamina]

true history: true mystery, chapter 1085 spoilers

OH MY GAWD,

What a chapter. And cos he's my boy, told you we didn't have to worry too much about one

Trafalgar

D.

Water Law!

I'm so excited (I feel like I should go out and order the whole set of steak knives).

Anyhoo! I remember when I enjoyed reading the scans on my Friday, and they now come out very early my Thursday morning (like, super early. It's just shy of 3am). BUT this was a treat. And the reason I mostly read them is to prevent being spoiled, but also because they include really interesting translator's notes, etc. such as the ones below about Imu:

Which is difficult to see, but basically it says that Imu refers to themself as Mu and then says that Mu can refer to the void century but also to dreams. Super interesting. And so, Lili was not, unfortunately Imu (but that's okay, cos' I love this story line too), BUT she was a...

D!!!

As shown above, where King Cobra realises...

...that he won't survive his encounter with Imu (who was apparently one of the original 20), and Cobra reveals that Lili was Queen Nefertari D. Lili. GOOD STUFF. Sabo overhears. Imu has some problems with this, because, as stated by Cora

and reiterated by (without knowledge to the best of our understanding) Imu

the "D" is the moniker of the Celestials ancient enemy.

And, although sketchy, look at the perspective from that panel above! Imu is miles above them all. Another aside, while looking up Cora and Doflamingo stuff, there's also the 'heavenly' perspective on this frame with Cora and Law, but I also know Oda is fond of this type of editing/story telling:

Back to 1085: Cobra's recollection that Imu was the name of one of the original 20 does tie into the probable theory that Imu had the eternal youth operation centuries prior.

Anyhoo, this is well out of order (my posting of frames) as always! Sorry. It's not only the D's that Imu and their clan need to be scared of, but also

the scholars. Be still my LawBin shipping (platonic or romantic) heart! But, I digress. So Lili is the one responsible for the preservation and also dispersal of

the poneglyphs. Whole page there. So much information! Cobra has not revealed that Lili was a "D" at this point, or that he himself is, so he was playing with fire coming in to see the Elders, but I guess the whole lineage had known about that for a long time then (that they had the initial for some reason) and had survived. It also seems that maybe King Cobra did know more about the poneglyph in Alabasta than previously assumed. Perhaps?

Anyway, Imu above says that Lili's dispersal of the poneglyphs around the world was perhaps a deliberate action (apparently it had been passed off as a mistake, a blunder) as part of a larger plan. And with the reveal of her being a possessor of the Will of D. it seems it probably was, even if she was a catalyst, as so many D's seem to be, without having full awareness or knowledge of what ultimate role they're playing.

Full page again, cos it's so good. So Imu questions Cobra as to why they never divulged Lili's full name, only referring to her by her royal title, which is actually pretty standard practice. BUT, Imu obviously has very strong convictions that Lili is one of those rabble rousers who get this his entity-self really hot under the collar too!

And the Gorosei basically saying: You can't expose that we're some kind of oligarchy/dictatorship/absolute malignant monarchy when it's supposed to be some kind form of supposed League of Nations acting for all countries and supposed world peace. Interesting mix of Imperialism and colonialism these guys have going on. Anyway! The revery is still going on, and is now absolutely proven to be a farce:

Although King Neptune, and who's the other dude? Can't remember. Not Dalton, is it? (please let me know) King Riku Doldo are looking very skeptical at the Uncle Sam dude. (Thank you @robinchan-hananomi !)

Walpol becomes relevant in a way that it seems that Caribou will be too, and Vivi has been kidnapped by the CIA CP0 (or are they CP9)?

Walpol overhears and sees not only Imu's decimation of Cobra with figures that look a lot like Kanjurou's Kazenbo flame spirit from Wano (did the Gorosei shape-shift too, or was it all Imu sending out some kind of malevolent spirit?), but I think he also overhears Cobra's revelation to Sabo that has a nice SFX bubble over it to just tease we readers enough with hints of information about how the Poneglyphs must be protected, and will seemingly will help usher in the dawn! Ooh, so excited.

BTW. What or who is the figure behind Cobra in the bottom right panel? Sabo?

Walpol outs himself as having seen everything, so shocking is it to him:

and so the spectres are on his tail (and I think it's quite funny that first Imu doesn't know or sense Sabo, and other defenses are breached by Walpol, of all people!). SO, he's one of my least favourite villains, along with Caribou and Spandam, but I'm guessing there's something with their devil fruits that make them crucial to the plot, as well as being kind of incidental characters witnessing key points of One Piece lore.

I doubt he has any great love for Vivi, but he also probably knows where his best chance for survival lies, so, it seems he's been creeping around the castle and I'm going to align CPO with Get Smart now, cos they've got that kinda vibe. Not goofy enough to be Scooby Doo (although Jabra does a good job), but still funny and sexy enough to be the characters of Get Smart who weren't Max. (look it up if you don't know).

Anyhoo! Vivi got kidnapped, and I'm guessing it was at the urging of the gorosei who did it at the urging of Imu, or maybe if Cobra didn't spill the beans, they would've used her as a bargaining chip. Anyway, Kalifa here:

stating that Vivi will end up being a pet (?!?). Did Charloss want her? And I'm wondering if Jabra's wording is a mistranslation, although maybe not. As far as I'm aware, the expression is "play your cards closer to your chest", but maybe it's changed over time. Or there's a pun I'm not getting.

Vivi's reaction in the following frame is awesome (gonna put the whole page in again, cos it's got so much info):

First, awesome that Shirahoshi got away, and we saw that way back when with Garp accompanying the family back to Fishmen Island. Cool info dump from Jabra above. (Very chatty secret agents. Maybe that's why they don't get to wear masks). But I especially like Vivi's incredulity at Kalifa's comment, and her commitment to doing something about it. She's got a devil fruit, doesn't she? Yes! BUT

Trashing young prince to the rescue! (okay, he's a king, once disposed, newly reinstated somewhere) (but he is young. This guy's in his 20s, I think). Vivi hitches a ride with the dumpster on wheels. And from there, Big News Morgans picks them up! (not yet witnessed). Here from chapter 1074:

She's really gone up in my estimation. I never noticed how much she speaks her mind and sticks up for others before (I'm slow, don't worry). And it's not just cos she's a D. Haha. That's not an automatic "like" card, but I might be a little predisposed.

Speaking of which, this part with the ASL brothers was hilarious:

"Do want a "D" in your name, Sabo?"

"You can be Sad. Bo!"

"Why'd you put it there!?!"

Ah, lol, bless.

Also, Imu has the same kind of imperiousness as Doflamingo. Doflamingo's rougher in speech, and I'm guessing with the "thou" and so on shown in the scanlation on the first page that Imu is formal, but as entitled and condescending as fuck, just like our pink feathered friend.

One thing (or many) so interesting about Doffy, though, is:

from chapter 727, is that he's a man very sore about losing his Celestial dragon status, who wants to destroy them and the world government, and who is not afraid of the CD's. Also, it seems that he's well aware of Imu (Mary Geoise's greatest treasure?). I wonder how he was going to challenge Imu if Law had granted him eternal life. If that was his aim. So, a digression, but I think our pink bird will again be relevant soon! Fingers crossed, and I really don't want them to redeem him. Please.

Lastly, the cover was very cute:

Franky directing newly hatched turtles to the ocean, and it's true, so many head in the wrong direction, and such a small proportion actually survive, so he's a hero. Is he sitting on a turtle-hatchling eating crab?

Dunno if any of this was coherent, and I'm sure I missed a bunch, but over and out for now (ah, back to bed!).