#so its not actually that implausible

[pikkish]

So I was rereading How To Process a Soul (because it's one of my faves) and I just happened to look at who the author was and had a moment of like... no way... Pikkish the cool artist is also a cool author... so I just had to come over here so I could compliment you :3

Wait wait are you telling me that you found my tumblr and my ao3 independent of each other and didn't realize until now that they're the same person? Because that's hilarious.

[lotus-pear]

not to be that person but studio bones could and would change the ending of bungou stray dogs if they so desired. how do i know you ask? because that’s what they did with fullmetal alchemist and soul eater.

[princessmo]

ship so ass it makes you leave the discord server while driving for work

[ongreenergrasses]

6, 7, 10, 17, 19, 35, 49!!

oh you know me I love to yap so thank you!!

6. name three books that changed your life

Delta of Venus by Anaïs Nin, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg, and Just Kids by Patti Smith

7. do you have a favorite podcast?

yes i do! Scare You To Sleep by Shelby Novak (listed as BloodyFM on Spotify but she’s the host)

10. state an unpopular opinion you have

oh you guys are gonna hate this one BUT. i hate the way they did the blocking and the editing in mockingjay pt 1 for Finnick’s speech. i actually don’t hate his delivery of it.

what i was hit with when i watched it most recently is that it absolutely oozes a calculated performance. like i watched it and went oh that’s a performer. and while that’s not what happens in the book, a) let’s be real they were never going to do that because Finnick is unwell in that book in a way that Hollywood would never capture and b) the way he played it is realistic in a way. i’ve seen a lot of people talk about truly horrific things in a very similar fashion where it does come across as them performing because yeah, maybe you personally could be present in yourself while you do that, but often people simply cannot allow themselves to feel the enormity of the words they are saying if they want to get through it, and he very badly did want to get through it. so i didn’t hate it and I said yeah I could definitely see that happening

17. what song do you love dancing to?

the only thing that’s coming into my head rn is Sinking by Feverkin and it’s because i have some really good choreography to it (not mine)

19. got a random fact you’ve been holding on to?

according to this one guy i know who does rehairs, apparently the best hair for string instrument bows comes from Mongolian horses. now idk if this is actually true but!

35. is there a movie you like better than the book it was based on?

i kind of want to say Annihilation? i loved what they did visually because it was so much more evocative than the book and the final confrontation was so cool. the reason i hesitate is that the book is written in such a way that the movie is absolutely fundamentally different so it doesn’t really feel like an adaptation.

49. describe your aesthetic

seventies with a lot of black, slightly chaotic, and sometimes looking heavily lumberjack

fill my inbox 📬

[asteroidtroglodyte]

Absolutely fascinated by the Fairy Walrus Discourse. Naturally, I have a take:

This actually is also a fantastic illustration of a truism about Telling Stories that we all implicitly know but rarely acknowledge aloud: the improbable is far less believable than the impossible.

When you invoke the impossible, you silence the critically thinking, reality checking, lie detecting circuitry. Simpler rules reign supreme.

The Walrus, however implausible, is a thing which is real, and so whatever narrative you imagine either precedes or follows the reveal will be constrained by the envelope of the possible.

This is a webbed site all about Narrative.

The person answering the door to a Fairy is in a fairy tale, and frankly most of us would be overjoyed to find ourselves in a fairy tale. Fairy tales have sensible rules, structures we understand, tropes we love and hate.

A Walrus on your doorstep is just one more giant reminder that the world is a maelstrom of chaos, incomprehensible in its complexity, full of moving parts which obey no narrative. It’s another dose of “what fresh hell is this?”

A Walrus on your doorstep is a burden. A Fairy on your doorstep is an escape.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Three AI insights for hard-charging, future-oriented smartypantses

MERE HOURS REMAIN for the Kickstarter for the audiobook for The Bezzle, the sequel to Red Team Blues, narrated by @wilwheaton! You can pre-order the audiobook and ebook, DRM free, as well as the hardcover, signed or unsigned. There’s also bundles with Red Team Blues in ebook, audio or paperback.

Living in the age of AI hype makes demands on all of us to come up with smartypants prognostications about how AI is about to change everything forever, and wow, it's pretty amazing, huh?

AI pitchmen don't make it easy. They like to pile on the cognitive dissonance and demand that we all somehow resolve it. This is a thing cult leaders do, too – tell blatant and obvious lies to their followers. When a cult follower repeats the lie to others, they are demonstrating their loyalty, both to the leader and to themselves.

Over and over, the claims of AI pitchmen turn out to be blatant lies. This has been the case since at least the age of the Mechanical Turk, the 18th chess-playing automaton that was actually just a chess player crammed into the base of an elaborate puppet that was exhibited as an autonomous, intelligent robot.

The most prominent Mechanical Turk huckster is Elon Musk, who habitually, blatantly and repeatedly lies about AI. He's been promising "full self driving" Telsas in "one to two years" for more than a decade. Periodically, he'll "demonstrate" a car that's in full-self driving mode – which then turns out to be canned, recorded demo:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-self-driving-was-staged-engineer-testifies-2023-01-17/

Musk even trotted an autonomous, humanoid robot on-stage at an investor presentation, failing to mention that this mechanical marvel was just a person in a robot suit:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/elon-musk-tesla-robot-optimus-ai

Now, Musk has announced that his junk-science neural interface company, Neuralink, has made the leap to implanting neural interface chips in a human brain. As Joan Westenberg writes, the press have repeated this claim as presumptively true, despite its wild implausibility:

https://joanwestenberg.com/blog/elon-musk-lies

Neuralink, after all, is a company notorious for mutilating primates in pursuit of showy, meaningless demos:

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-pcrm-neuralink-monkey-deaths/

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Musk would risk someone else's life to help him with this nonsense, because he doesn't see other people as real and deserving of compassion or empathy. But he's also profoundly lazy and is accustomed to a world that unquestioningly swallows his most outlandish pronouncements, so Occam's Razor dictates that the most likely explanation here is that he just made it up.

The odds that there's a human being beta-testing Musk's neural interface with the only brain they will ever have aren't zero. But I give it the same odds as the Raelians' claim to have cloned a human being:

https://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/03/cf.opinion.rael/

The human-in-a-robot-suit gambit is everywhere in AI hype. Cruise, GM's disgraced "robot taxi" company, had 1.5 remote operators for every one of the cars on the road. They used AI to replace a single, low-waged driver with 1.5 high-waged, specialized technicians. Truly, it was a marvel.

Globalization is key to maintaining the guy-in-a-robot-suit phenomenon. Globalization gives AI pitchmen access to millions of low-waged workers who can pretend to be software programs, allowing us to pretend to have transcended the capitalism's exploitation trap. This is also a very old pattern – just a couple decades after the Mechanical Turk toured Europe, Thomas Jefferson returned from the continent with the dumbwaiter. Jefferson refined and installed these marvels, announcing to his dinner guests that they allowed him to replace his "servants" (that is, his slaves). Dumbwaiters don't replace slaves, of course – they just keep them out of sight:

https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/behind-the-dumbwaiter/

So much AI turns out to be low-waged people in a call center in the Global South pretending to be robots that Indian techies have a joke about it: "AI stands for 'absent Indian'":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/29/pay-no-attention/#to-the-little-man-behind-the-curtain

A reader wrote to me this week. They're a multi-decade veteran of Amazon who had a fascinating tale about the launch of Amazon Go, the "fully automated" Amazon retail outlets that let you wander around, pick up goods and walk out again, while AI-enabled cameras totted up the goods in your basket and charged your card for them.

According to this reader, the AI cameras didn't work any better than Tesla's full-self driving mode, and had to be backstopped by a minimum of three camera operators in an Indian call center, "so that there could be a quorum system for deciding on a customer's activity – three autopilots good, two autopilots bad."

Amazon got a ton of press from the launch of the Amazon Go stores. A lot of it was very favorable, of course: Mister Market is insatiably horny for firing human beings and replacing them with robots, so any announcement that you've got a human-replacing robot is a surefire way to make Line Go Up. But there was also plenty of critical press about this – pieces that took Amazon to task for replacing human beings with robots.

What was missing from the criticism? Articles that said that Amazon was probably lying about its robots, that it had replaced low-waged clerks in the USA with even-lower-waged camera-jockeys in India.

Which is a shame, because that criticism would have hit Amazon where it hurts, right there in the ole Line Go Up. Amazon's stock price boost off the back of the Amazon Go announcements represented the market's bet that Amazon would evert out of cyberspace and fill all of our physical retail corridors with monopolistic robot stores, moated with IP that prevented other retailers from similarly slashing their wage bills. That unbridgeable moat would guarantee Amazon generations of monopoly rents, which it would share with any shareholders who piled into the stock at that moment.

See the difference? Criticize Amazon for its devastatingly effective automation and you help Amazon sell stock to suckers, which makes Amazon executives richer. Criticize Amazon for lying about its automation, and you clobber the personal net worth of the executives who spun up this lie, because their portfolios are full of Amazon stock:

https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5

Amazon Go didn't go. The hundreds of Amazon Go stores we were promised never materialized. There's an embarrassing rump of 25 of these things still around, which will doubtless be quietly shuttered in the years to come. But Amazon Go wasn't a failure. It allowed its architects to pocket massive capital gains on the way to building generational wealth and establishing a new permanent aristocracy of habitual bullshitters dressed up as high-tech wizards.

"Wizard" is the right word for it. The high-tech sector pretends to be science fiction, but it's usually fantasy. For a generation, America's largest tech firms peddled the dream of imminently establishing colonies on distant worlds or even traveling to other solar systems, something that is still so far in our future that it might well never come to pass:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/09/astrobezzle/#send-robots-instead

During the Space Age, we got the same kind of performative bullshit. On The Well David Gans mentioned hearing a promo on SiriusXM for a radio show with "the first AI co-host." To this, Craig L Maudlin replied, "Reminds me of fins on automobiles."

Yup, that's exactly it. An AI radio co-host is to artificial intelligence as a Cadillac Eldorado Biaritz tail-fin is to interstellar rocketry.

Back the Kickstarter for the audiobook of The Bezzle here!

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/31/neural-interface-beta-tester/#tailfins

[hussyknee]

Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip

(Source: The Lancet)

The Lancet is one of the oldest and highest impact peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Deliberate undercounting of deaths is a key feature of genocides.

The Electronic Intifada estimated it at 193,000 a few days before.

The reported number of martyrs on Wednesday this week was 37,718. It’s important to note that this number only includes martyrs who have been identified by name and civil ID number through the beleaguered health ministry in Gaza. Given the breakdown of reporting systems due to heavy destruction of infrastructure and personnel, this number, even with its limited parameters, is a gross underestimation. Based on more accurate figures of approximately 370 people killed daily, multiplied by 264 days of genocide, the actual number is closer to 97,680 martyred. (Per OCHA estimate of 15 martyrs per hour: Over the course of 264 days, which amounts to 6,336 hours, this number would roughly be 95,040).

...

Based on these estimates, both conservative and data-driven, respectively, the actual figures are likely as follows: • 377,280 buildings destroyed completely or partially • 95,040—97,680 martyred • 221,760 injured • 24,750 dead or dying from starvation • 42,000 missing (presumed dead, kidnapped by Israel’s occupying forces or possibly trafficked). The following ranges represent conservative estimate or lower range of data-driven population estimates: • 17,050—94,049 with chronic illnesses dead from lack of medication • 14,408—255,985 dead from epidemics resulting from Israel’s assault This means the actual number of dead is closer to 194,768—511,824 people, with 221,760 injured. And counting.

(Source: The Electronic Intifada)

Israel surrounded the last remaining hospital in the Gaza Strip with tanks and ordered it evacuated and shut down 12 hours ago.

If you still want to believe the pussy-footing toll of counted and reported deaths that can stand up to Western propaganda, after nine fucking months of dropping more than 70,000 tons of bombs on a 41 kilometer strip, exceeding World War II bombings in Dresden, Hamburg, London combined, rather than the statistical breakdown of humanitarian orgs and medical journals, then have at. There's no point telling you to believe the victims and question your own biases towards your own heavily propagandized establishments.

But if you can do basic math, then please use The Lancet's estimated death toll. The massacre of 8% of the Gaza Strip is a conservative estimate and still apocalyptic. Resist all attempts to diminish it. Remember that this is the result of the United States's obstruction of justice and open-handed abetting of genocidaires. Keep fighting.

Btw:

While the war itself is estimated to have generated between 420,265 and 652,552 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) so far—equivalent to burning more than 1.5 million barrels of oil—this figure soars to more than 61 million tonnes when pre-and post-war construction and reconstruction are included. This is more than the annual emissions of 135 individual nations—but there is currently no legal obligation for militaries to report or be held accountable for their emissions.

(Source: EuroNews)

[dollish-shard]

Mech pilot handler playing Armored Core VI and ranting about all the inaccuracies to her pilot. (who is on the floor between her legs, too twitchy and blissed out by continuous battlestim use to actually understand anything other than direct orders)

Sometimes she says the word "combat" and the pilot looks up at her and shivers like an eager puppy. She pats its head fondly and then roughly pushes it back towards her crotch as she continues to complain about the implausibility of mechs being so mobile flying in Earth's gravity.

[albatross-lancer]

(OOC: Reposting the summary I made to stand on its own for people who caught bits of it but don't want to have to switch between several different blogs)

A THOR-class NHP named Arthur entered cascade in Harrison Armory's PR offices. He caused significant electrical damage to the offices but as far as I can tell no one was seriously injured, and the PR intern, Jimbo, managed to calm him down. The situation now seems to be resolved amicably.

Rev, an AGNI-class NHP implied that they caused Arthur to cascade. Recent comments by them suggest that they did this to advance the cause of NHP equality (forgive my rumormongering, but I have my doubts. Their omninet page contains a great deal of what seem to be boasts of war crimes and genocide, they don't strike me as much of an egalitarian. That said, my Loyal Wing tells me she's met and fought cultists who earnestly believe in a future where humans and NHPs are free to inflict horrific atrocities upon one another, so who knows. People are complicated. I'm also unconvinced Rev actually did cause Arthur to cascade, the manner they describe seems implausible.)

The Corsair Mercenary Company and the squad commander of the MSMC 796th, Kennedi/Lockbreaker, were angered by this claim. I'm not sure why this incident, which Jimbo resolved well before there was a actual fighting, prompted her to act independently, but there was some indication of the security breach having wounded her pride. (It is also possible that they were, in fact, being contracted by a HA higher-up and only pretending to act independently). She recruited another squad, the MSMC 148th, and they set out for Rev's abode in Karrakin space.

Rev caused the NHP at Corsair Mercenary Company, which named themself [STABBY], to cascade. [STABBY] then took control of several subalterns and systems and attempted to kill the CMC, inflicting a high casualty count before being shut down by MSMC 796th's "Slipshod" using a liturgicode virus. (Based on [STABBY]'s rapid decision to attempting to kill the CMC once given the ability to do so, even if during cascade, it seems likely that they did not have a positive relationship and allegations of abuse seem credible)

The MSMC squads arrived and engaged Rev's Genghis body and a group of Hercynian lancers Rev had recruited via Hercynian Refurbished Armaments. The battle ended with both Rev and Lockbreaker's mechs effectively destroyed, Rev's casket damaged and Lockbreaker in critical condition. There was significant collateral damage dealt to the planet, though fortunately no civilians, bystanders, or other innocents were harmed.

Albatross long patrol "Osprey" received several distress calls from the area and rerouted to investigate. When they arrived, medics were able to stabilize Kennedi and assess the situation. Rev was recovered by "an associate", the MSMC squadrons were able to contact command and get returned to headquarters, and I belive the Hercynians returned to Hercynia. After assisting local damage control and double-checking that no one was hurt, long patrol Osprey will be returning to their nearlight patrol route.

[writingquestionsanswered]

How to write a fantasy when you're an extremely logical person?

I have this problem where I try to figure out how everything in my world works as “scientifically” as I possibly can even though, as a fantasy, I can't expect it to be 100% rational/logical. I can't seem to write just from imagination or approach my story as a creative. I'm always overthinking and complicating things as I come up with explanations for why things are the way they are, and it's stressing me out. I could, of course, see where this logic takes me. But honestly, I’d prefer if I could just stop getting hung up over tiny details

Logical Writer Struggling with Overthinking Fantasy

I have the exact same problem, and TBH, I'm still trying to figure it out for myself. One thing thats... kind of (?) helping is recognizing that fleshing it out for myself doesn't mean I have to flesh it out for the reader. In other words, sometimes (for me, at least) it seems to be enough to logic it all out to my own satisfaction, but then give myself permission to leave it off the page. What I'm finding, most of the time, is that if it genuinely needs to be there it will work its way in naturally. So, as an example, I had spent an obscene amount of time trying to come up with a plausible scientific explanation for something that is scientifically implausible, and then I had worked it into my plotting--which only cluttered things and created problems--so I scrapped my plotting and started again without the attempt at scientific logic. The result was something that felt infinitely more magical and fantastical, and what ended up happening was there was a brief exchange between two characters in which I came up with an off-the-cuff quip that summed up all that scientific-hoop-jumping in a way that made it the buttress I wanted it to be, but without all the clutter and shenanigans of actually working it into the story. It was enough that I felt like it would be enough to pacify a skeptical reader, but it didn't dampen the magic or clutter things up.

So, that's my best, personal experience advice... if you have the time, energy, and ability, let yourself go to town with shoring up the logic of your story's world, but give yourself permission to leave it out of the story except and unless it works its way in naturally, which it probably will. I think, on some level, having the "math" all worked out in your head makes it easier for your brain to see where it fits into the story naturally rather than trying to shoehorn it in where it doesn't belong.

I hope that helps!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

♦ Questions that violate my ask policies will be deleted! ♦ Please see my master list of top posts before asking ♦ Learn more about WQA here

[serenityhime1]

I feel like smut comes in several different tiers.

First you've got your bottom-tier smut. This smut is lower-effort. Maybe it's a newer writer's first attempts at smut. Maybe it's someone young or inexperienced dipping their toes into things that intrigue them. Maybe it's someone learning what writing style works best for them. Maybe it's a writer who just wants to write some damn porn and couldn't care about the quality of what they put out.

There is nothing wrong with bottom-tier smut. Everyone starts somewhere, and it's easy to do a little hand-waving for anatomical improbabilities because even though every woman has the perkiest size Gs and the every man has the thickest 12 inches ever seen, it's still hot and people like reading it (and writing it!)

Next you've for your middle-tier smut. There's a couple of categories here, too, of course. You've got your low-story PWP that's just nicely-written sex mixed in with your stories that are a little more plot-driven but not quite written with the highest level of finesse. Middle-tier smut is where a lot of writers (myself included) fall. Good stories, good sex scenes, maybe not the kind of story you think about too much later.

And then there's the top tier. Cream of the crop, silver spoon, gilded in gold smutty fics that are so much like epic stories that leave you curled into a ball sobbing with how beautiful they are. Maybe you don't actually cry, but maybe after you finish it you stare vacantly at the wall for a little while, pondering the depth of the information you've managed to cram through your brain cells via your retinas. Stories you think about at random times, sometimes years later.

My point is that each of these tiers is beautiful and precious and I love them. I love stories that I would consider not the highest of art (although I can't always stick with it if some of the smut gets too wildly implausible sometimes), I love stories that make me contemplate the meaning of life, and I love everything in between.

It all comes down to the idea that art is wonderful. I'm talking about smut in particular here, but I'd love to encourage anyone who wants to write to give it a try. Even if you struggle, you can put your ideas to the page and come up with something new, or even something old that's being told in your own way.

I want to read your epics, and I want to read the stories you think are trash, and I want to read your low-brow entertainment, and I want to read your well-outlined plot. Sometimes I crave a challenge, and sometimes I want something simple, and neither of those is "good" or "bad".

Everything has its place, and they should all be celebrated. Write. Make art. Add to the collective creativity of the human race. Do it wildly with passion, do it carefully with a precise hand, but do it.

[all-pacas]

a post about ages that quickly got out of hand

so in house's head 13 says she wasn't born in when a movie came out in 1980, meaning she isn't older than 28 years old. in reality, olivia wilde was 24 at the time, but that's way too young for thirteen: we don't have a Chase Problem, where 13 has had a million subspecialties and needs to be older to account for them, but most people don't actually finish med school until they're 28.

if we assume 13 is doing the normal fellowship thing — that this is her first post after finishing her residency — then she could be 28. that would put her as the same age as kutner (who actually has the opposite problem: kal penn is actually a few years older, but kutner is explicitly 28 when he dies), which kind of fits nicely.

foreman, cameron, park, adams, and taub's ages are never stated. in foreman and taub's cases, we can probably assume they're the same ages as their actors; probably the same for park. adams and cameron, i think, both get the chase/thirteen treatment of being quietly aged up a few years:

omar epps was born in 1973, making foreman 31 in s1, which seems about right for finishing his neurologist training.

chase says he's 30 in s2, making him 29 in s1 (born 1975). (house says he's 26 in s1, which was jesse spencer's age, but the show seems to have realized its mistake, thus the pointed "i am 30" line.)

cameron has a line where she tells a patient the others on the team are older than her. however, jennifer morrison was born in 1979, making her 25 in s1, which is again too young. let's say cameron is 28 in s1, born in 1976. EDIT: Anon pointed out given her training, she really can't be younger than 30 in S1.

for 13 and kutner to be 28 in s4, they both would have been born in 1980/1981.

peter jacobson, and probably taub, was born in 1965, making him 42 in s4.

masters is said to be 29, despite her prodigy status (mostly because she got a few degrees before starting med school).

charlyne li was 26 when they were cast as park. in this case, park doesn't need to be aged up: she's explicitly said to still be a resident when house gets her, so her age works.

adams, however, suffers from extreme Chase Problems: she was 27 when cast, but adams has not only finished medical school and all her training, but also has been working in the prison system for a while. she has to at least be thirty, realistically. i'd honestly put her as a couple years older.

for contrast, wilson starts s1 at 38 years old, cuddy at a wildly implausible but stated 36, and house at 45.

so, just for fun and because this post is rotting my brain, if you lined everyone up in 2004, sometime during the pilot:

HOUSE: 45 WILSON: 38 TAUB: 38 CUDDY: 36 FOREMAN: 31 CHASE: 29 CAMERON: 28 30 KUTNER: 24 THIRTEEN: 24 ADAMS: 22 MASTERS: 22 PARK: 18

[saintsenara]

do you go with word of god about how tom would have been better off if merope lived and raised him or that it would have been even worse for him and merope would have become infatuated because of his resemblance to tom riddle sr? (Similar to how part of the fandom believes snape would be if harry resembled lily lmao) which of do you think its more interesting route?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

i go for the first of the two options - that merope living would have been so much better for wee tom riddle jr. - not because it's what jkr says, but because i tend to loathe any interpretation of merope's character which undermines the fact that so much of her life could have been changed at numerous crucial moments by anyone connected to the wizarding state giving a fuck.

merope is a teenage girl who lives in abject poverty, has a treatable medical condition [exotropia - eyes which stare in different directions] for which she clearly hasn't received any medical care, is denied an education, is subjected to physical violence by her father right there on the canon page, and is implied in canon to be subjected to incestuous sexual violence by her father and/or brother. the state has numerous opportunities to remove her from this experience - when marvolo fails to respond to her hogwarts letter, when bob ogden visits the gaunts - and yet doesn't, and while i don't think that just being taken away from morfin and marvolo would have solved everything, it would have given her the safety to start healing...

i get why the idea of merope as this sinister, unhinged, devouring, unchangeable bundle of malevolence, who would destroy her own son by becoming infatuated with him, is compelling when the genre demands it to be - i've written her as a folk-horror villain myself, and she was perfect for the role - but in fics which aren't intentionally going for that sort of supernatural, dark fairytale, horror-story vibe... i don't think it hits.

merope's great tragedy - much like her son's - is that she is someone capable of and longing for a normal life, but who is denied this by the corrosive forces of grief, poverty, abuse, and indifference and who goes on to perpetuate harm in turn.

as i've said elsewhere, her rape [and we should call it what it is] of tom riddle sr. doesn't actually need to have any undercurrent of sadistic, unhinged infatuation to be both morally abhorrent and canon-coherent - her treatment at her father and brother's hands would hardly have given her an understanding of consent or bodily autonomy [and might also have made her believe that drugging a man until you can totally control him is the only way to prevent him hurting you], while the fact that the state just leaves her on her own after marvolo and morfin are arrested [with - presumably - no income to speak of] means that she can be understood as seeing tom sr. as her only escape from sliding ever further down the ladder of destitution.

does that mean that she didn't also - selfishly - desire tom sr.? absolutely not. it just means that i find it much more interesting when the idea of her wanting him for herself is given equal weight with all the other things in her life which shape her character - and that i also find it much more interesting when these forces are recognised as commonplace, human, and having pretty much nothing to do with magic.

[the state would not - after all - have had to raise a wand in order to unravel the abuse to which she is subjected... since it does this all the time in the real world - and i am definitely a sucker for stories which acknowledge that the greatest flaws in the wizarding world don't depend in the slightest on magic, but on human corruption.]

if she'd survived childbirth - while i'm certainly not suggesting that i think she'd have been a flawless mother, nor that the absence of a wizarding welfare state wouldn't have made their lives incredibly difficult - i think it's legitimately implausible to suggest that she'd have done anything other than love her son as her son [so, without any incestuous vibe].

[her comment - "i hope he looks like his papa" - is, i think, meant as mrs cole takes it - that she recognises that she's someone who isn't conventionally attractive by any means, and that she knows that tom riddle sr. is.]

[mariacallous]

Vanity Fair: The things we associate with freedom—free speech, religious liberty—have been co-opted by the Republican Party. Do you think you could walk me through how that happened historically and how Democrats could take that word back?

Timothy Snyder: Yeah. I think the way it happened historically is actually quite dark there. There’s an innocent way of talking about this, which is to say, “Oh, some people believe in negative freedom and some people believe in positive freedom—and negative freedom just means less government and positive freedom means more government.” And when you say it like that, it just sounds like a question of taste. And who knows who’s right?

Whereas historically speaking, to answer your question, the reason why people believe in negative freedom is that they’re enslaving other people, or they are oppressing women, or both. The reason why you say freedom is just keeping the government off my back is that the central government is the only force that’s ever going to enfranchise those slaves. It’s the only force which is ever going to give votes to those women. And so that’s where negative freedom comes from. I’m not saying that everybody who believes in negative freedom now owns slaves or oppresses women, but that’s the tradition. That’s the reason why you would think freedom is negative, which on its face is a totally implausible idea. I mean, the notion that you can just be free because there’s no government makes no sense, unless you’re a heavily drugged anarchist.

And so, as the Republican Party has also become the party of race in our country, it’s become the party of small government. Unfortunately, this idea of freedom then goes along for the ride, because freedom becomes freedom from government. And then the next step is freedom becomes freedom for the market. That seems like a small step, but it’s a huge step because if we believe in free markets, that means that we actually have duties to the market. And Americans have by and large accepted that, even pretty far into the center or into the left. If you say that term, “free market,” Americans pretty generally won’t stop you and say, “Oh, there’s something problematic about that.” But there really is: If the market is free, that means that you have a duty to the market, and the duty is to make sure the government doesn’t intervene in it. And once you make that step, you suddenly find yourself willing to accept that, well, everybody of course has a right to advertise, and I don’t have a right to be free of it. Or freedom of speech isn’t really for me; freedom of speech is for the internet.

And that’s, to a large measure, the world we live in.

You have a quote in the book about this that distills it well: “The countries where people tend to think of freedom as freedom to are doing better by our own measures, which tend to focus on freedom from.”

Yeah, thanks for pulling that out. Even I was a little bit struck by that one. Because if you’re American and you talk about freedom all the time and you also spend all your time judging other countries on freedom, and you decide what the measures are, then you should be close to the top of the list—but you’re not. And then you ask, “Why is that?” When you look at countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, or Ireland—that are way ahead of us—they’re having a different conversation about freedom. They don’t seem to talk about freedom as much as we do, but then when they do, they talk about it in terms of enabling people to do things.

And then you realize that an enabled population, a population that has health care and retirement and reliable schools, may be better at defending things like the right to vote and the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of speech—the things that we think are essential to freedom. And then you realize, Oh, wait, there can be a positive loop between freedom to and freedom from. And this is the big thing that Americans get a hundred percent wrong. We think there’s a tragic choice between freedom from and freedom to—that you’ve got to choose between negative freedom and positive freedom. And that’s entirely wrong.

What do you make of Kamala Harris’s attempt to redeem the word?

It makes me happy if it’s at the center of a political discussion. And by the way, going back to your first question, it’s interesting how the American right has actually retreated from freedom. It has been central for them for half a century, but they are now actually retreating from it, and they’ve left the ground open for the Democrats. So, politically, I’m glad they’re seizing it—not just because I want them to win, but also because I think on the center left or wherever she is, there’s more of a chance for the word to take on a fuller meaning. Because so long as the Republicans can control the word, it’s always going to mean negative freedom.

I can’t judge the politics that well, but I think it’s philosophically correct and I think we end up being truer to ourselves. Because my big underlying concern as an American is that we have this word which we’ve boxed into a corner and then beaten the pulp out of, and it really doesn’t mean anything anymore. And yet it’s the only imaginable central concept I can think of for American political theory or American political life.

Timothy Snyder Explains How Americans Might Adapt to Fascism Under Trump

[tainbocuailnge]

shalem's profile is weird because operator profiles are in lore written as rhodes island personnel files. a person in universe writes these files as part of the HR administration and so they are always framed through a lens of reporting on things operators told them directly, the operator's observed behaviour in the landship, things their independent investigations have uncovered, etc. occasionally there will be a section with ambiguous perspective or author where it's implausible a HR person would actually be able to write this down, but this is almost always the "promotion record" section and all the "archive file" sections are, well, plausible HR archive files.

this is consistent among pretty much all operators including fellow bearers of the curse like phantom and ebenholz, integrated strategists like mizuki, highmore, or valarqvin, ancient mysteries like the sui, and literal fairytale dreamland residents iris and bena. even sections that are written as flowery and ambiguous glimpses into their past use this framework of something a HR employee would reasonably write down in these files as relevant information on how to handle the operator in question, like bena's history being reported as a fairytale bena's grandmother told her, or fragments of sui history being conveyed through reports of ancient inscriptions.

all of shalem's files after the medical examination are written like this though

they're describing a character. and a mobile game character's profile describing a character to you likely won't even scan as weird on first read but it's completely out of line with the way every single other character profile is written. it talks about the future like it's obvious. it describes his nightmares without any mention of him actually having shared those with anyone. it explains in loving flowery detail how the crimson troupe recruited and indoctrinated its performers. it's completely unclear who wrote this or how they got this information. shalem doesn't get to contribute a single word in his own files, these aren't HR files describing what kind of person shalem is, it's a narrator describing what kind of character shalem is

the crimson troupe arguably has their claws in shalem way deeper than they do in phantom. phantom is the star performer that the troupe actually wants back but he has wiggled his way out of his role far enough that his files are actual HR files that describe him as a person in the setting. shalem refused to play the part of killer and ran away from the troupe, but even while eking out a new life in rhodes far away from his past he never once slipped out of character.

[thrawns-backrest]

Prompted by this post and the related interview, reason 15467352 why I think Dave Felony isn’t up to the task of writing live action Star Wars.

I was going to harp about how this proves Filoni hasn’t read the books but this interview is from before the canon trilogies were out so touché on that. And yet this just proves to me why Filoni isn’t the guy for the job of writing Thrawn. Or any live action imperials for that matter.

I’ll start by saying that one thing I will concede is that the notion of the Imperial military being plagued by incompetent officers is not entirely unrealistic. Given that it’s a stratocracy, you can expect to find people who used politics to climb the ranks rather than actual military competence - it’s a kind of French Revolution situation kind of thing. Historically it’s been known to happen in our world.

Combine that with the fact that the Empire is racist, elitist and (kind of) sexist as all hell and you have a limited pool of people to pick from when filling its ranks, pushing some genuine talent to the fringes or excluding it altogether.

The thing I’m entirely tired of seeing though is the implication that it’s the majority of Imperial leadership that’s like this and by this I mean incompetent. The overwhelming majority at that. But more on the Empire’s moronicity later, let’s talk about Thrawn.

“He’s not ambitious in the way where he needs to see himself promoted, or a governor one day. He purely wants to dissect them; that’s what he enjoys!” This. This grinds my gears so much. For starters it proves that Filoni sees Thrawn as this ‘quirky baddie’ where Zahn treats him as an actual person. There’s something almost condescending in taking a neurodivergent coded character and being like ‘aww, look at them, they’re so happy doing their little thing they don’t have any other goals and ambitions whatsoever :)’.

To get things straight, Thrawn has always been annoyed by the limitations placed on him by an inferior rank. You could argue it’s for the simple reason that a higher rank gives him more freedom to act and pursue his goals but that’s just what that is, a simplification.

And that’s where Filoni’s problem lies:

Filoni is good at writing cartoons. And before people raise their pitchforks, I don’t mean this in a negative way. Writing cartoons forces you to squish complex ideas into a digestible format, the genre needs simplification and caricature to work and doing that well is a talent all by itself.

You’re meant to put in some extra effort to suspend your disbelief in order to enjoy the deeper complexities of the story. Where that stops working though is when you step out of the genre and move into live action and our good buddy Dave doesn’t seem to realize that.

It may admittedly sound like I’m being unnecessarily harsh on him and I probably am but I do realize the guy is just doing what he does best. I doubt he has any real beef with neurodivergents or has no actual clue that militaries need a base level of competence in order to function and thrive.

Neither is he the only one guilty of implying the Empire’s competent staff can be counted on the fingers of one hand. “It’s just so different for them to have a bad guy that’s, you know, actually smart with how he uses the Imperial war machine!” Okay, Dave. Sure Dave. “[…] with the exception of Tarkin – Tarkin’s strategically intelligent” Oh so there’s two of them! (okay okay, I’ll stop here)

My point is, you can’t get away with making the antagonists so stupid in a realistic setting. I recently saw someone compare Kenobi and Andor in terms of portraying your antagonists correctly and I have to agree that Andor is the only star wars live action media in recent memory that gets it right. (Though even Andor is guilty of injecting some stupid into its plot in order to enable implausible events to happen. I’m looking at you, Maarva’s speech.)

Because the thing is, the more bumbling and idiotic you make your antagonists, the more it detracts from the efforts and skills of your protagonists when defeating them. The Empire is sprawling and all powerful, so much so that it takes several force users pulling deus ex machinas out of their ass to bring it down. In conjunction with the extreme dedicated efforts of the Rebellion mind you.

It took a timely coincidence of hubris, political corruption and flawed strategy working together to allow it to happen. Give me media that explores why the Empire endured for so long, the mechanisms in place that made ordinary people turn into cogs of the machine, the selective process behind constructing an absolutely ruthless, dangerous leadership, media that looks at how these same conditions can come about in our world rather than the unrealistic explanation of ‘people bad because bad’.

Zahn, Gilroy, Luceno and many others are examples of writers that do this justice. Pass the baton on to Filoni and you end up with an antagonist who’s smart as an exception because ‘he’s just so quirky’ while still bearing all the hallmarks of a cartoon villain, the ominous gloating speeches and sadistic behaviour and whatnot.

I’d be hella remiss to say it hasn’t left its mark on the fandom either. The amount of times I’ve seen characters like Tarkin, Krennic, Palpatine, etc. be moronified (while Thrawn inevitably gets his victim treatment) while completely ignoring the fact that defeating them was no small feat and their having weaknesses to exploit isn’t something that detracts from just how dangerous and scary these motherfuckers were.

The Clone Wars was a good show. Rebels was a good show. But by god is Filoni bad at transferring his skills to live action and no one can convince me that Thrawn isn’t the best example of that.