#so i practiced some perspective in this one!!

[wowitsverycool]

people who posture that odile forgiving siffrin and thinking The Time Loop is cute is out of character are a little silly... she is such a creature of practicality that it simply would not make sense for her to hold a grudge. and the 'cute' bit is her weird old lady way of recontextualizing the loops as not only necessary (as she explains later) but also *not worth being ashamed of*.

she is adding levity to the situation *and* building a brick wall of "it doesn't bother me, so stop apologizing about it" to signal to siffrin to stop arguing about how Evil it Makes Them. it expands upon her established character by showing that she is quickly learning to meet siffrin at their level while maintaining that sense of practicality. like "oh you think your yearning makes you awful and disgusting? bro it's not even a big deal. it's cute. i am more interested in discussing literally anything else about what happened."

the alternate perspective she offers is also one that shocks siffrin out of their own perspective (and evidently the perspective of some players lol), which has been the precipice of her character for the entire goddamn game!! think about it! the sus quest, the toilet paper scene, the end of her friendquest where she corrects siffrin on why her mood has improved -- she is constantly challenging what siffrin has accepted and resigned himself to!! all of the main characters embody change in different ways, but odile is arguably the only one who *actively rejects* stagnation in all its forms. so it only makes sense that what siffrin endlessly ruminates on -- the morality of their desire for closeness -- odile flippantly dismisses.

it wouldn't make sense for her to be Angry and Unforgiving because that's what siffrin expects (and, in a way, wants). it would be contrary to both her role in the narrative and her established character. her forgiving siffrin is maybe a bit jarring (as it is supposed to be), but not unnatural. It Just Makes Sense.

also, total forgiveness is neither unrealistic nor unsatisfying. it's just something that is often deemed 'too sappy' to properly depict.

[caughtthedarkness93]

Seriously!

I tear it apart because it gives me new ways to love it.

Returning to a beloved classic years later and finding a new way it speaks to you because you learned something new that lends it entirely novel context.

Talking to a friend of yours who examines things through a totally different lens. Someone who doesn't share your identity or has had different life experiences from you or something like that might pull something you never would have seen about a piece of art and completely change the way you see it.

Watching it and seeing how it's in conversation with other art that's trying to do something similar.

Working on something and being horribly stuck, and then some movie or book you're returning to or reading for the first time unlocks something in your own work that gets you past that roadblock.

Breaking down the details of what specific artistic decisions make it so good and applying those lessons to your own creative work.

There's something joyful in each of these practices, something that pulls more and more and more out of these pieces of art and makes you appreciate them more and more over time.

And yeah, sometimes that means finding something you don't like about it. But sometimes you find there's an artistic reason that makes it deeper than you thought and throws it into a new perspective, or you just...simply accept the fact that you can dislike things about something you otherwise love. No piece of art is perfect. But just because you find a flaw in something, even a glaring one, doesn't mean it's ruined. Edgar Wright's really bad at writing women a lot of the time. The female characters in his films often have little agency or development. Baby Driver has this problem too. Doesn't mean it's not a joyful film to experience that I found so relatable to my own experiences with autism. Just because a piece of art has flaws doesn't make it bad.

i find it so interesting how people act like "critically examining a piece of media" is the opposite of "enjoying that piece of media." rip to you but i actually find it really enjoyable and compelling to dissect and think through the art i engage with

[creatingblackcharacters]

Hello! Thank you so much for all the effort and care you put into this account. I am a white high school english teacher and most of my students are Black; I cannot overstate how beneficial your lessons have been to my work. A lot of it has been in how I pick which texts we read. I’ve tried my best to carefully search for as many different Black authors as I can, especially modern ones, and it’s made me so happy to see my kids get excited about Black characters in stories! I FINALLY got a kid (who had refused to read all year) hooked on a book because he said the main character was just like him. You’ve also given me some really good advice on how to guide their critical thinking about race in a way that puts their own voices and experiences and feelings at the center. I’m learning so much from them as well, and when I make mistakes out of ignorance, your lessons have been invaluable for helping me maturely correct myself and make things right with kids. Besides, it’s plain easier to communicate when I’ve done the work at home to get more familiar with important parts of Black culture and experience. I definitely still have work to do for myself and with my white coworkers, but I just want you to know that what you’re doing is having a real positive impact on some young Black people in the world :)))

I think out of all the responses I get, my favorite is when I find out that the Black kids that people are around benefit from the newfound perspectives. Black children are treated so poorly in schools, like it honestly breaks my heart how we get sent in and expected to fail. It really can fuck up your perspective on the rest of your life when you have teachers that you're supposed to listen to... And they practically enforce that you don't matter. So I appreciate that you actually made that space a little more welcoming for our kids; that means the world to me. 😭😭😭😭

And really, just think about it- you got that job without ever having to think about these things before. For every teacher that's like you, there are hundreds that just... Aren't. That don't do the extra work. And they don't have to!

[therowdymagpie]

Arcana Main 6 as Animation Styles

A/N: Here's some short headcanons for what what style of animation the Main 6 remind me of. These are mostly based on vibes.

Asra: Psychedelic animation

...Come on, you know why I picked this

To be fair, I also see Asra as 2D because of the sense of wonder and whimsy, but this was too fun to pass up on(It's what they would have wanted)

It's just perfect for him, it's literally Asra's flavour of mystery and what the heck aura, it's colourful and very Lisa frank in vibe

No thoughts, no purpose just trippy landscapes and bright colours with underlying meanings

Julian: 3D Animation

Like Julian, it is very popular with the crowds as well as the industry itself

There's also a connection with the theatrical as 3D is meant to create the illusion of real life in 2D animation by lighting and using the right setup

It's main purpose is to (aesthetically at least) please the audience, adding debth and life to the world, which I feel like really goes well with Julian's personality and effect he has on others

Moreover, It's one of the only types of animation that get used in the Medical Field to illustrate how diseases develop and progress in the body, which Julian would definetely be fascinated by :D

Nadia: Graphic Animation

This is frankly the only style I could see Nadia as

Have you Seen this woman's cursive? This works really well

Graphic animation needs creativity, it's efficient, practical and always aspires to be stylish and desirable, much like the Countess herself

I think it also makes sense from the perspective that Nadia has to be always well-presented herself as a person in a position of power(I mean this style's most popular uses are in Marketing and Business)

Muriel: Stop-motion Animation

The use of an unmoving and limited movement material that gets manipulated to create a very specific line of action hmm...

Honestly, aside from traumatic connotations, I really feel this style suits Muriel because it just does.

I mean from vibes alone...It's uncanny, eerie but also very life-oriented and grounded which are so him in the start of his route.

Also a very versatile style of animation that can use an array of objects(often more environmentally friendly) to work, so maybe it can be compared to Muriel choosing to live in the middle of the woods.

Portia: Rubberhose/ Traditional Animation

Just Bubbly, energetic and vibrant, it feels like classic 2d is just perfect for Portia.

I especially love rubberhose for her because of her lively nature and child-like wonder she presents.

Plus seriously Portia is all about her fictional books and fantastical adventures so it's not too hard imagining her just being so immersed even in modern cartoons.

Don't be fooled though this style of animation took (and still does) incredible dedication and putting your soul in it, which could subscribe to Portia's strength and hard work ethic.

Lucio: Rotoscope Animation

Rotoscope animation looks like being between the real world and another entirely, which is just very reminiscent of Lucio's state for a certain 3 year period...

It essentially "uses" or "takes" elements from real life to create movement, which I think is just a very funny pararel to Lucio basically wanting to snatch MC's body to come back to life XD

Much like the man himself though, there's also some controversy with it as a technique, as many people think it just a way to trace and a shortcut to animation .

Using it in projects can also be quite expensive too so yeah, very Count all in all.

[ooooo-mcyt]

There seems to be a running theme with honor and “honorable” kills. Gem and Pearl, scar/jimmy and Grian, even Cleo and bigb with the betrayal. I’m interested to see how the alliances are torn/made with this

Also gempearl divorce

I think the focus on "honorable" kills in many ways comes down to the characters' desire for basic agency.

There aren't many choices anyone can make in this game. They have to play, they have to die. They don't get any choice over being here, over the game mechanics, over their inevitable fates. Any mark of agency characters get is in little things. How they choose to react to things, managing to scrape up some semblance of a 'win' for themselves, or being able to die on their own terms.

Most things in the series can be read through this lens of agency, but the "honorable kills" theme is one of the biggest ones.

Gem knows she has to die, it's part of the game, but there was something traumatic about the end of Secret Life from her perspective. Her team was strong, and then it wasn't, sustaining an injury they couldn't recover along, but continuing to drag themselves along as every single option and choice they thought they had was gone, and Gem died alone, two against one. This season she refuses to have that agency taken away from her, and she resents Pearl for trying, for refusing to give her an honorable fight.

The reason killing Impulse got to Ren so much is because Ren prides himself on his honor. Ren's never truly had much choice in his own life, but one thing he can always choose is to have principals, is to stick to his sense of honor. We see Ren do something he deems dishonorable and immediately make excuses, craft a narrative in which he was led to it, in which it wasn't his fault, in which he never would have done it on his own. Ren creates a boogeyman so he doesn't have to face the thought that his honor can fail. So he doesn't have to face the fact that the desperation of this game can take away one of his only ways of control in his own life.

Grian, when victim to 'cheap' kills, feels like it's a violation of his personal agency as well. He has a chance in a fair fight, or against a well laid trap, and when the kill is silly, well, usually he lets those happen for the bit. But a cheap kill isn't something that can easily be avoided, and it makes him feel helpless. What does it mean if someone can just kill him and he doesn't even have a chance to stop it? Furthermore, Grian practically offered to let Scar in specific kill him, and if Scar took him up on it, that would have been Grian's choice. But instead Scar turned him down and then went for the 'cheap' kill anyways, as if Scar was trying to make him as powerless as possible (scar wasn't, of course, but it must have felt like it)

People locked in an endless looping death game want to be able to feel like they have a choice, like they have agency, and they don't feel right when the little ways they can keep that agency are taken from them.

[doinkdoinkdonk]

Hello, here to say:

I looked at several online interviews and Amaury says he does several things with the chocolate.

First, he runs his own pastry school so some of the sculptures are remelted and used as practice material for his students. This is usually the ones that get damaged in some way (like getting partially melted).

A lot of his smaller cretions are eaten or sold, especially if they have components that spoil quickly like whipped cream, cake, etc.

And in (this) interview, the interviewer says that he keeps a lot of his sculptures on display for years, so while they may not be eaten, they aren't just being tossed out in the trash. I found (this) interview where he says most of his sculptures are on display at his pastry school so it backs up.

I don't find keeping the sculptures an absurd notion, given 1) the amount of expense and work that goes into making them and 2) (Lenny the Chocolate Moose) is an example of a huge chocolate sculpture that's been around for 20+ years and is still going strong, so this is absolutely not a new or super unbelievable thing.

I hope that gives some perspective!

via amauryguichon on instagram

[jikooklove9795]

Hey, there! First of all, I wanted to share just how much I enjoy reading all of your detailed posts and how nearly every time they're just SO spot! This being said, I was wondering about something just for funsies: What are some moments between JK and JM that people often use as "proof" but in your eyes, they aren't actually all that significant to you and are just innocent interactions? Personally, I love being realistic and objective when it comes to KM, so there definitely are some moments that just don't look all that proof-esque to me the way other momemts between them are undeniably hinting at a possible relationship. I was curious about your views on this matter, and thank you so much if you decide to indulge in my curiosity hehe!!

Hi Anon 😊

Thanks a lot for your kind words. I really appreciate it and I'm so happy to know that you enjoy my posts.

But when it comes to your ask 😅 I should probably be the last person you send this to. I understand its natural to leave room for doubt since we are all assuming that Jikook are in a relationship. However, I'm a bit different, I guess, because I have no doubt in my mind when it comes to Jikook. For me, they're definitely in a long term committed relationship with each other.

I usually never try to link two people romantically unless they've made it public that they're dating. However, if I notice something undeniable in their behaviors or interactions when they're around each other, I might change my perspective. There's often a chemistry or electric spark thats impossible to hide no matter how hard they try.

And when it comes to Jimin and Jungkook there are countless behavior patterns over the years that solidify my belief. Even without considering the loud moments there are numerous subtle and consistent patterns in the way they interact with each other. A few of these are:

1) Their frequent one on one time both on and off camera

2) Their inside jokes, inside stories, their nicknames or terms of endearment for each other

3) Their familiarity with each other's habits which most of the time seem like new information to even the other members

4) Subtle physical affection like lingering touches, any excuse to hold hands, always gravitating towards each other

5) Body language (angling their body towards each other), giving the other undivided attention, using soft tones while speaking

6) Unconscious smiling where they smile a lot more in each other's presence for no particular reason

7) Blushing (cue Jimin on his birthday live 2021, Jimin during 3J Butter dance version, Jimin after blowing a kiss to Jungkook during MMA 2018 and many more)

8) The protective gestures, how they get defensive when it comes to the other

9) Their soft gazes for each other which are filled with affection and admiration

10) Their noticeable effort to support each other (Jikook at each other's practice stages), the concern and worry reflected in their eyes and voice tones when the other is having a grueling schedule, bad health etc.

All of these are indicators which reveal the depth of their relationship.

So, what I'm saying is that, what maybe proof of Jikook dating to some might not be convincing to others. This could be because those moments are subtler compared to the more obvious ones. However, that doesn't make those moments any less meaningful. When considering the bigger picture, these subtle moments, especially since they occur consistently make a significant difference in how we perceive Jikook's dynamic.

It shows that what they have is not mere sexual attraction but something they have nurtured through time and effort. That's why their love continues to thrive despite all the struggles they may have faced.

We are all unique and this uniqueness shapes the way we perceive things. Thats why there is a variety of opinions and perspectives when it comes to interpreting a moment or interaction.

And since Jikook are in love (in my opinion) almost all their interactions carry an underlying affection and fondness for each other. This is why to some these interactions might appear as evidence of them being together.

When it comes to them I always notice something special in the way they interact. They're so gentle, romantic, and fun that it makes me believe that love still exists and its possible to have healthy loving relationships even when you're super famous. They're truly a breath of fresh air.

So, yeah, thats my answer to your ask, Anon. Once again thank you so much for your kind words. They really put a smile on my face.

Have a nice day 👋🏻

[kandisheek]

FIC REC WEEK 47 – CANON DIVERGENCE

Gained in Translation by Annie D (scaramouche)

Pairing: Steve/Tony Rating: T Words: 11,556 Tags: Humor and Banter, Light-Hearted, First Kiss

Summary: Steve returns to New York and meets Tony for the first time since they’d parted ways after the Chitauri incident. It’s a little awkward at first, but they gain a new rhythm, which is mainly based on their ability to surprise each other and prove those first impressions inaccurate. Set between Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Reasons why I love it: I love how we get to see Tony figuring out that Steve is a little shit with a sense of humor, but it's told from Steve's perspective in all these subtle cues, which makes it even better. And oh my god, the moment Steve realizes that he feels something for Tony is one of my favorites in all the fics I've read, it's just so Steve. I adore this fic, and if you haven't read it yet, you are missing out!

Sins of the Father by AvocadoLove

Pairing: Bucky/Tony Rating: T Words: 11,196 Tags: Hostage Situations, Howard is HYDRA, Secret Identity

Summary: Tony's practically become an old hat at being taken hostage, but something's fishier than usual this time around: his captor looks twenty-eight but claims to know Howard Stark, the NYPD negotiator is a SHIELD plant, and what's this about a fleet of helicarriers set to launch? (TWS AU.)

Reasons why I love it: Everything about this is so fricking good – the whole mess with Howard, the way that SHIELD's HYDRA infestation comes to light, the hopeful ending, I love all of it. And of course, the hints of Winteriron bonding are amazing. Also check out the second part of this series, which is a prequel to this one, it adds another layer of awesomeness to this whole thing.

Can You Carry It (With No Regrets) by RayShippouUchiha

Pairing: Steve/Tony Rating: G Words: 1,722 Tags: Major Character Death, Infinity Gems, Unhappy Ending

Summary: “I know,” Tony tells him softly, eyes wide and soft and lips quirked in a small smile, “it isn’t fair.” Tony’s always been so good at knowing what Steve’s thinking, except for the few times Steve purposefully, actively, lied to him. Times he knows now he’ll never get the chance to make up for. “Focus,” Tony whispers as he leans forward into Steve’s space. “Breathe.”

Reasons why I love it: Aaaah, this hurts SO GOOD! I love the role switch and the way the scene goes down with those subtle differences that make it Stony. And of course, the added regret just makes it all even more tragic. Definitely check this one out, it's amazing!

Party girls don't get hurt by sirona

Pairing: Steve/Tony Rating: E Words: 12,871 Tags: Age Difference, Misunderstandings, Howard's A+ Parenting

Summary: Steve never slept under the ice. Howard found him, and got him back, and Steve married Peggy, and Howard married Maria, and then there was Tony. This is the story of Tony growing up with Steve very much present in his life, and everything that changed because of it - and some things that didn't.

Reasons why I love it: What do a young Tony Stark who is just as full of snark as you would imagine and a supersoldier not so lost in time make? The recipe for a fantastic fic, that's what. I love the way their relationship develops over time and all of the canon elements that they find their way into the plot. This fic is spectacular, and you should definitely read it!

Symmetry Breaking by Annie D (scaramouche)

Pairing: Steve/Tony Rating: E Words: 10,824 Tags: Emotional Hurt/Comfort, Casual Sex, Happy Ending

Summary: After the Battle of New York, Steve rode off on his motorbike. That's how it went the first time. This time he rides back, all the way to Stark Tower, where he asks Tony for help.

Reasons why I love it: This is such a brilliant take on what might have happened after Steve's little elevator stunt during the Endgame time heist, it's honestly genius. The smut is fantastic, and I love every single line of dialogue that they say to each other, it's so them. This fic is wonderful, and you should definitely read it, if you haven't already!

[atangeledskein]

Ever since I watched Tennelle Flower's video analyzing Chikai and Don't Think Twice a few months ago, my mind felt like an egg that had been cracked open, leaking yolk all over my writing and my daily life. I'd heard these two songs through my Utada rotation on Spotify over the years, thought they were pretty, never thought to look up the Japanese lyrics, etc. I think even if I had, without the context of being songs written specifically for Kingdom Hearts, I would have remained blissfully ignorant, never knowing just how much they could inflame the torch I carried for SoRiku in my heart.

Link to the video, for reference -

All my thoughts after watching this video were stuck between two, major and immoveable truths -- one, that I 100% agreed that Chikai was from Riku's point of view (on top of the perfect lyrics, it played first the first time during his reveal trailer, after all), and two, that as much as I wanted to agree with Tennelle, I couldn't think of Don't Think Twice being from Sora's pov with the same conviction. I thought it could make a neat inspiration for fanfic, being so full of longing and portraying an unfulfilled connection between two people. It clearly expresses a desire for closeness, a gratitude for being a part of this other person's life. But underlying all of it is a bittersweet frustration that their feelings aren't being returned, that even after making promises to change they are practically begging for any hint of affection from the other person. It made no sense to have two people, mutually declaring their love and a desire to stay together, being framed in one of the songs as having unrequited feelings.

So I sat on it, listened to it, sang it, watched more videos, and finally came to a different realization. Don't Think Twice is from Kairi's point of view.

And all the puzzle pieces fell nicely into place.

How did I live in a kingdom of thieves And people who say things they don't really mean - Kairi's early life in Radiant Garden

You're only everything I ever dreamed Ever dreamed of - Kairi's desire for Sora in her life, his steadfast companionship, is a balm to her lonely soul

I want you for a lifetime So if you're gonna think twice, baby I don't wanna know - Sora's initial rejection and hesitance over sharing a paopu fruit with her; she doesn't want to know the real reason, or how he feels, she just needs him to take it and give her peace of mind

If you want to take it to an even higher level All you gotta do is say the word, you know I'll follow - She's still waiting, hopeful for some word of affection, some sign that Sora is willing to give her a chance and take the next step in their friendship If you want to make it happen, nothing's impossible All you gotta do is say the word, the walls will crumble If you want to make it happen, nothing's impossible - Kairi's unrequited longing is so clear here, how desperate she is for a chance to be what Sora wants, even though he is still giving her no sign that it's going to happen.

This block of lyrics is really where I started to doubt that this song was from Sora's point of view. The line "nothing's impossible" and all the sentiment around it feels really naive, like a schoolgirl with her first unrequited crush. A relationship of mutual affection isn't built on breaking the laws of reality, on forcing something that's impossible to become real. This struck me too heavily with a feeling of, "I'll change, I'll be anything you want, just say the word and I'll be everything you need, I promise." But why should there be a need to change in the first place, unless they know deep down that their feelings aren't returned?

I won't go deeply into Chikai's lyrics, since I think it's a given that it's from Riku's perspective. But I do want to point out the contrast between the two songs and how difficult it is to think that they're being offered as the sentiment of two people that have the same feelings for each other. Chikai is all about the awe and wonder of discovering that their secret feelings are actually mutual, that their self-perception of unworthiness hasn't chased away the other person or gotten them rejected. And from that point onwards it's nothing but pure conviction, an outpouring of their deepest feelings, and a declaration to keep their lover close for the rest of their lives. It's a vow of everlasting love.

And who has always been at the center of the love triangle between the Destiny Islands trio? Sora, of course.

So it makes sense to me that both of these songs are being sung TO Sora. One, wishing for more but knowing deep down that their romantic feelings are unrequited. The other, expressing their disbelief that they were chosen, and then charging full-speed ahead without hesitation (I love you too, I want you in my arms forever, let's get married).

And there's my analysis. SoRiku is endgame.

[As an aside, I have to thank the existence of MDZS for even more firmly cementing Chikai being from Riku's pov. I think I would have fallen into that uncertainty that our fandom is often plagued with otherwise, because SoRiku is built on context clues rather than explicit narrative, and we deal with a fan-majority that is indifferent to or outright hates any mention of homosexuality in the game. But if I had been presented Chikai without knowing it was from KH, and been asked to think of a character it could have been written for, I would immediately pin it on Lan Wangji and his feelings for Wei Wuxian. The instant change from, "Wait... you feel the same as me?" to "I love you too, I will promise you forever, let's go get hitched," is too on-the-nose to ignore. I wonder if Utada is a secret MXTX fan...]

[gayleviticus]

a lot of framing of the problem of idolatry frames it as like, competition between God and a bunch of other guys, as if they're the same category of being but God is just the best one. and it's certainly a framing that happens in the Bible, which uses a lot of strongly anthropomorphic language for God.

but in light of actual Christian belief being that God is the source of all being, goodness/perfection/beauty/life itself, something far beyond the category of being, the ultimate and sole cause of everything - it becomes quite obvious that God is not even just 'the best deity' or 'the Mary Sue of ancient near eastern gods', but something that transcends such categories.

it's not 'superman would beat batman', it's not 'the death star would beat the enterprise', it's not even 'hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby'; it's asking whether a gun could defeat the sunrise. it's a category error.

(i remember a friend once told me theyd been taught by a professor of Islam that strictly speaking that while in English God often gets used to translate Allah, in Arabic it is incorrect to actually call Allah a 'god', because Allah transcends such a category. Allah isn't on the same level as other so-called gods. Given it's thirdhand info take with a grain of salt but it's an interesting comparison to English where use of capital G-God might position us instead to think 'God is just like the mary sue of zeus, hera, odin')

and with that in mind, i think the problem of idolatry shifts from 'here are all these other guys who are competing for God's place' to 'these idols are trapping people's perception of Divinity in a dead end'. crude anthropomorphism, investing divinity in things of gold and metal, being diverted from the true Unity behind everything.

and i guess the practical difference behind this is i think it can shift some room to be more appreciative of, say, Hinduism without evacuating idolatry of any kind of actual relevance. Hinduism (generally - recognising there is much diversity in Hindu traditions) acknowledges that the myriad of gods are ways of understanding Brahman behind everything, and though there are surely still issues and problematic points from a Christian perspective, i think there are grounds to identify that Hindu polytheism can avoid the trap of idolatry in locking people to a crude understanding of divinity as just really powerful dudes.

conversely, even in Christianity there is much potential for similar dangers of trapping your perception of God with images that need to be moved past (God as old man in the clouds) or even smashed (God as old man who literally has a Son, God as literal despot governed by might makes right). and altho there is the saving grace that at least your intention is to worship the true God, it doesn't save you from blaspheming that God by what you ascribe to him.

[papaya-inspiration]

This is really interesting! I hope you don't mind if I do a bit of analyzing of your loglines, because this is also something I struggle with and I'm interested in seeing what I can learn by breaking down the ones you've posted.

Some quick context first: I haven't read any of your longform fiction. I know from my sister (she's a fan) that they would probably be right up my alley (and I fully intend to read WtC, it's just long and I haven't quite gotten to it yet.) So I can't how accurately these capture the actual stories, but I can analyze them from the perspective of someone in the target audience who might pick up one of these books on the strength of the logline.

The thing that stands out to me most is that nearly all your loglines break up nicely into two parts: the first clause sets up the context of the story and the second clause provides the main thrust of the plot. In your stronger loglines, it is immediately apparent how those two things play off each other. In the weaker ones, the two parts feel disjointed or don't have an immediately obvious connection, and thus are missing the "twist" or "hook" that draws potential readers in.

Let me explain through some examples. I think your strongest logline here is the one for Shadows of the Limelight. The set up is both clear and snappy ("In a world where fame gives you power") and the plot hook immediately sets up several dramatic questions (what is protagonist going to do with all this sudden and unexpected power? what expectations come with it? how does the hero he saved feel about this? how does the protagonist's status as a "fanboy" affect with that?) The relationship between the set up and the plot is immediately obvious and it comes with the "twist" built in.

On the other side of things, I think several of your other loglines suffer from the same issue, particularly The Dark Wizard of Donkerk and Millenial Scarlet. Both have a set up and a plot hook, but the relationship between the two isn't clear. For Dark Wizard, how does "being raised by dark wizards" affect going on an adventure? Does it hinder the protagonist, or prepare them to approach their quest in a particularly unique way? Does it make them a particularly unlikely duo with the wayward princess? Are adventures a normal thing for this world? I think a stronger logline would tie the protagonist's unique background to how their quest will go down, which also has the added benefit of preparing the reader for what the tone of the story will be.

Similarly for Millenal Scarlet, the logline would be stronger if we got some sense of how the dead mother's plans came into conflict with the protagonist's job. I love the set up--"gig-economy demon hunter" is an inherently interesting premise (at least to me) and it sure seems like the kind of job that could bring you into conflict with a loved one's last wishes. But the logline doesn't actually tell us enough about the nebulous "plans" to show that there is a conflict, or what it is going to be.

So yeah! I hope something in there is helpful to you, or at least minimally annoying to receive. It was fun to look over your examples and think about why some of them jumped out as more appealing to me than others (and hot damn I really do need to read WtC one of these days.)

Also, in the spirit of practicing and improving I'll tack on attempts at loglines for two of my own stories (though they are currently not available to read publicly anywhere, alas):

Zivanka at Baytown - In a harbor town ravaged by unpredictable storms and unfriendly to outsiders, an orphan girl discovers the lengths she will go to secure a place for herself.

Death and the Doctor - Accompanied by the personification of Death itself, a plague doctor must free a village from a strange malady with otherwordly origins.

Save the Cat is a snappy read, and only 8 chapters, so I'm just doing a liveblog of them unless I get bored or distracted.

Chapter one is about the pitch, the logline, the title, what you put on a poster and how you sell it. It doesn't necessarily come first, but I get the sense that for Snyder this would be his preferred way of doing it. (A logline is just the one-sentence "what is it about" that you use to sell people on the idea.)

Snyder says that writing loglines is awful, soul-crushing work, and I agree there. I'm awful at it. But Snyder also says that if you don't have a good logline, maybe there's something wrong with your movie, and that I don't agree with.

I think there's a fairly wide set of stories that have good, snappy, easy loglines, and are also good stories. But I think there are other stories that are good stories and don't have a great way to pitch them. The lack of a good pitch can exist for a lot of reasons, and sometimes it's just that it's more complex than can be summed up in a single sentence, or even a handful of sentences. I think in practice writers will often dumb down the story for the logline, lying about what's contained within, just to make sure that it will sell, that people will want to know what's inside.

One of the other main points of the chapter is that a good logline has irony to it, a twist inherent in the title, some kind of thematic tension, and I disagree with that too, maybe not from the standpoint of selling a script, but from the standpoint of storytelling.

Why does everything have to have an irony to it? Why does everything have to have a twist? Why can't we have stories that are just well-told explorations of conflict and character? It's like at some point people decided that they only wanted Distinct Pieces of Media, so if you wanted to tell a story that's been told before, something with its own unique texture, you're just shit out of luck.

I find this all the more irritating because often the twist/irony/idea/pitch is good, and then the execution is shit, and then people don't want that idea again. It's not like you can say "like that thing that flopped, but good".

Blake Snyder is trying to tell good stories, but he's also trying to sell stories, and this is a good thing for authors to know how to do. I accept this. I just don't like it.

So as a writing exercise, here are some loglines for things I've written, without the amount of care and polish and revision that a good logline needs:

Worth the Candle - A teenaged dungeonmaster gets thrust into the worlds he's created, where his recently deceased friend is a historical figure. (This is bad, not short and snappy enough.)

This Used to be About Dungeons - Five young adults team up to delve dungeons and bake pies. (I don't know man, I said I was bad at this.)

Thresholder - A man travels through portals to different worlds and genres, gathering powers and skills as he fights other people just like him.

Shadows of the Limelight - In a world where fame gives you power, a fanboy saves the life of the world's greatest hero in full view of the public.

The Dark Wizard of Donkerk - An orphan raised by two dark wizards adventures north with a wayward princess.

Millennial Scarlet - A gig-economy demon hunter grapples with the death of his mother and the plans she set up before she passed.

Alright, I found that less soul-sucking than usual, but I don't think that these are the oiled, muscular, perfectly toned and smiling loglines that are necessary to sell, just to be clear. The marketing unit of written fiction is not really the logline, though that helps, it's the blurb, and I am equally awful at writing those. I just don't agree with Blake Snyder that a blurb or logline coming poorly is a sign that you don't know the story.

[charrfie]

I think he deserves to wear a pretty dress

I think so too :^)

[communistkenobi]

now that I haven’t lived with my parents for almost two years I’m starting to come to terms with myself as a full human being. and like idk I can’t really complain about my parents too much in terms of their overall parenting of me, I feel like I’m lucky in a lot of respects just based on the horrific shit some of my friends/family have gone through, but I feel like one consequence of how much my parents fucking hated each other for my entire life is that I feel like I have no reference point for showing affection or being emotionally considerate/vulnerable, those things tend to make me deeply uncomfortable and disempower me to do nice things for the people I love. I feel like I have to really concentrate and spend time on emotional reciprocity and spontaneous gifts/gestures of love. genuinely just kind of sucks how much my parents despise one another and how their constant fighting and days-long silent treatments over the course of 25 years has made me feel inadequate to the task of showing the people I care about how much I love them

[mc-tummy-blur]

Do I have any canonical proof that they were friends? No.

Am I going to believe that they were friends? Yes.

He’s showing her plants and she’s telling him the Latin name for them

Click for better quality

Check my pinned post to see links on how you can help the people of Palestine

[mademoiselle-cookie]

@missshelllo You know you can just reblog. It's easier and more practical.

But I will try to answer all your points. Keep in mind english is not my 1rst language.

But the manga was written in the 21th century. If you write a character having a sexist behavior, you treat him as him being sexist, even if it's to say it's normal for this time. A Bride's Story does that, and its story takes place near the Caspian Sea during the Russian conquest of Central Asia in the late 19th century. So NOT the most feminist place in the world. The women are still strong and developped and the sexist situations are treated like sexist situations even if they're normal and banal.

Or The Apothecary Diaries. It takes place in a fictional country based on Imperial China during the Tang dynasty, so again, not the most feminist place. And the sexist situations are called out by the author, even sometimes just in passing, even if no one can do anything about it.

(Or Mulan. The movie is not sexist and is considered extremely feminist despite taking place in a sexist context.)

It's also forgotting someone really important. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Born in 1859, who wrote A Scandal in Bohemia in 1891. In this short story, the only apparition of a character named Irene Adler, SHE OUTSMARTS SHERLOCK AND EVADES ALL HIS TRAPS. She shows a lot of independence, adaptability, and intelligence, win against a man and leaves to live her best life.

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote better female characters in 1891 than a 21th century author. Ryōsuke Takeuchi had no excuse for what they did to their female characters.

Also, Sherlock Holmes is treated as a sexist indivudual during Irene's arc. Why is he the only one? The author can called out their characters, they just choose not to when it's their favorites.

So there were about 50 women supposed to go to a dating event with only 2 men? If it was to get to know each other with a view to going further, why other men aren't there to do just that? Two men can't take care of this much women and it's a massive waste of time. It's not how it works. I don't know where to begin bc this idea is so stupid. The noble society will not force the Moriarty to organise a harem event. Even weddings are occasions for nobles to meet and chat with other people, including from a romantic perspective. Why not a tea party which goal is to meet people? It makes no sense.

Also, it doesn't answer why there's no chaperone. It's a really important thing at the time. You don't let a woman alone with another man, unless he's from your own family.

It's not just "girls alone party", It's a noble party, where the participants are taught etiquette from a very young age, and whose reputation is PRIMORDIAL. Reputation, especially for women, is extremely important. You may never get married because of this (worst fate for women of that era) because no one wants you, even if it's completely false.

Yes, women, even with etiquette, can be viscious, but they will be more subtle. They would try to do that in a way that will not hurt them. They will not act like middle-schooler kpop fan. They're adult!

And yes, some women would think they're entitled to everything, but there's a way to show that.

She's not supposed to be a strong woman going for what she want. She's supposed to be a gross individual that makes William uncomfortable with her sexual harassment. If their gender was swapped, the lady would rightfully seen as a creep, and William as a victim. It would not have been a "joke".

And it's disturbing that she is the only overweigth woman at the party, also the only woman who think harassing someone is a good idea. It's fatphobic af.

Yes, but William is mysteriously the most populair one, more than Albert, despite not being the heir and being, for the public knowledge, just a mathematician.

Even the servants get drooled all over, despite not having any statut or title.

And it doesn't explain the groupie behavior of all this women. They're educated adult.

Yeah but if you can't enter, it's not an issue if someone want to peak in. It's normal to want to lock your personnal office when you have guests. It would have not been suspicious.

I don't know what it's an answer to, but even at this time, William's plans are stupid and wouldn't work if the characters weren't Gary Sues and the world's logic wasn't bent to let them win.

William's plans don't work bc it's in the 19th instead of the 21th, it's bc it's a manga. I already talked abt this here.

But we don't see it.

I talked a bit more about this here but to be quick: we don't see what they publicly do as the Lord of Crimes.

Their last missions/arcs we saw were : Irene, the burglary, Jack the ripper, this chapter abt William/Sherlock and the commoner student, the tea party and William past.

From tome 6 to tome 9 (at least), we never saw the Lord of Crimes acting publicly, it's always in secret. So how can the public knows? And can WE knows what the public knows? How can they see him as a real person/entity when it was just a rumor before?

William makes mistakes? Really? When?

Or at least when it is treated as a mistake? I complain a lot abt him not wearing a mask while leaving a crime scene, but the story never points how absolutely fuckingly stupid it is, and the guy who caught him still thinks he's super smart and never acknoweldge what a fucking clown he was when he caught him. The famous Lord of Crime accidentally revealed is true identity to a media tycoon. And the author is not banging William's head for his stupidity. It's sound like a joke.

To go back to my example with DBD, when Edwin makes a mistake, he pays the price. When he tries to hit a powerful witch when he doesn't know how to fight, he gets sent flying; when he uses magic on a cat to force it to talk, he's stuck in a city across the ocean from home with a witch who wants revenge; when he refuses to talk to his best friend about what happened with the Cat King (bc he's figurating his sexuality in the worst situation possible), Charles is terrified and stressed out. (None of this mistakes come from stupidity or wickedness, Edwin has his own reasons to do what he does. But they're still mistakes)

At this point Sherlock is so inferior to William, I hardly believe he will be able to capture him, not if it's exactly what William want.

And William is a robot, he has no flaw, no real weakness. He's always perfect. He always has a plan and predicts everything. It's not credible and really boring. If at least the plans were really smart, and could actually work. I never have the thrill of seeing something intelligent, at best I have the writer thrill of imagining something better. I describe them often during my reviews so you can check that.

Sorry, but there is no substential difference between adult Will and child Will. Mentally, he's the same. He's still way better than anyone, even when they're supposed to ouclass him, he's still know more than it's realistically possible, he still manipulates people extremely well, he's still has no qualm torturing or hurting people he deems deserve it. He has the same personnality, can handle himself and his brother really well and has access to a lot of money despite being street orphan. Even his brother didn't change much, he's way to calm for what's happening in front of him.

The only difference is that it's way more irrealistic.

Is it treated as flaws or just quirky character traits? Did he really pay the price for that?

I don't remember the map thing so it either didn't happen yet, or it wasn't a real issue. The narcolpesy is just a joke, it never bothered him in his missions. The only women I remember he had problems with were the ones at the tea party, bc of their groupie behavior, and he wasn't the only one. Don't remember the overthink things, is it your interpretation? If it wasn't and the author really intended it like it, wasn't play like a real issue or a mere joke?

When I say flaws, I'm talking Sherlock who understimates Irene bc she's a woman and gets manipulated by her. I'm talking abt Sherlock being irascible and difficult, so much that Watson gets angry at him. Sherlock had to deal with the consequences of his actions.

To take Edwin as an example again:

Quirky character traits:

Not understanding the modern world (the only time it could have been an issue, he managed to understand it anyways despite being in a highly stressful situation)

Talking like a 1900 person

Flaws:

Not liking trying new things

His pride

His lack of bedside manners

His jealousy

The first one is light and fun, the other create problems for him and/or advance the plot. And they are, even if partially, overcome.

In Moriarty the Patriot, the plot never advance bc of William's flaws or mistakes (only when he get caught by Milverton and it's never treated as a mistake). And William... never changes. Even from when he was a kid, he's still the same.

Moriarty the Patriot Vol. 9

"En troupeau"

(translation: "in a flock")

It's only in the french version, not the english one. I don't know japanese so I don't know if it's the original intention to use words this negative and insulting toward women. The issue is, even if it's just the french translators who did a massive mistake, I had no problem believing that was just the author casually insulting women (my money on the english translators softening the term. Also the eng ver I read was fanmade).

Maybe in another manga, I wouldn't have minded. Like if the character is supposed to be a misogynist and you're supposed to think bad of them for that and not agreeing with them. But Albert is not supposed to be a sexist asshole. And given the manga's striking record in its depiction of women, I don't feel lenient.

And that's just the beginning.

(first picture of the guests)

♫ Où sont les hommes ? ♫

No reason why there shouldn't be men at the tea party. Or at least why women shouldn't be accompanied by chaperones. Etiquette was very important back then, and you wouldn't leave a woman alone with a man. The Moriartys are ONLY men to the rest of the world. No one would leave them with women alone.

Good Manners

Noble women have all received an education in good manners. They are more subject to the severity of etiquette than men. There is very little chance of seeing them throw themselves at men by elbowing each other and calling each other "primbêche" (again, only in the french version. In the eng one, it's just "these girls...")

Especially if the person in front of them is of a different rank than hers. The hierarchy is very important within the nobility and determines who you can talk to, how, who to be friends with, who to marry…

Sure, I know bc I've read hundreds of romance novels about English aristocracy but the author prides themself on depicting the real England of that period and doesn't even know that? Any webtoon whose story takes place in an aristocratic environment knows that, even when it's not the same universe as ours.

So no, aristocratic women don't behave like groupies (and of course the Moriartys have groupies, what did I expect)

It's basic for an author to do research. How many authors have you seen joke that they'd be mistaken for serial killers if you looked at their history? Do you know how long I searched for descriptions of the pain of tattoos for a fiction I'll never write?

It's crazy to put so little effort into a story that claims to be ambitious.

Servants

Nobles are raised from birth to view commoners - including servants - as inferior. Often, servants are more of a piece of scenery than actual human beings. It’s not meanness, it’s just their upbringing.

Of course, that’s the theory. There are exceptions. But that’s what they are, exceptions. Which are generally kept to oneself, and not shown publicly. Noble women won’t openly swoon over the Moriarty’s servants.

And if they ever got hurt doing something stupid, they would be more upset about their injury than about the lost work of a servant. That's what happens when people are used to having everything served on a plate since birth.

(And in this situation, the servant would indeed have been at fault. In a party with many people, an element that can easily hurt was accidentally thrown by the hip thrust of a not very thick woman? Thank goodness there was no one behind.

The protagonists obviously think that these women are wild and stupid. Why didn't they babyproof the entire property? Especially the rose garden, which is a place they know will be very busy.)

Flirting

Obviously, the woman who dares to flirt with William in an aggressive and vulgar way is fat and ugly. All the others are pretty and thin, except her. She can't be a pretty femme fatale who is used to having men at her feet and thinks that William will be the same. She must be an idiot who has the audacity to think that William will be attracted to her, whose inner ugliness is reflected on the outside. It's not stupidly fatphobic at all.

Popularity

Why are the Moriartys so popular? They are handsome but in the eyes of the general public, that's about it. They are not the only men who are attractive and have good status/wealth. In any case, their beauty is the only criteria cited to justify the obsession they are the object of (and it is NOT the most important criteria for noble society). Nothing justifies the groupie behavior of apparently all the noble ladies . They are not k-pop stars. Will is just a mathematician, not even the heir, and he is the one who receives the most attention?

There is no accounting for likes - and dislikes. If people think Jayden Revri is average-looking, I can assure you that there are women who don't swoon over the Moriartys.

The art isn't bad, but it's not good enough to rave about the characters that much. So all these compliments ring hollow. Just like in R&C

The chapter is just: look how beautiful and popular the main characters are.

(I won't talk about these ladies swooning over a math class)

Secret

William was showing off by saying that he put protection systems in his office to protect their secret. But apparently, he didn't think of a very basic one.

Locking the door.

The girls who entered his office don't seem very bright like all the women in this manga, so I highly doubt that they picked the lock (and even less broke down the door). And if these very young, naive girls managed to do it, they need to put better locks. It should be easy with a genius like Von Herder.

Speaking of him, why is the secret meeting room in the basement so poorly hidden? How did the dog (who is just a dog with the intelligence of a dog, not a spy looking for the Moriartys' secrets) get so far? Its owner too? Is the entrance to the basement so poorly guarded?

There is once again a simple solution.

A door. Locked. Hidden by a curtain or a screen. Or even the same appearance as the wall. How did they not get caught before with such miserable discretion measures? (Well, they got caught, because William and his brother are too stupid to wear a mask)

Sure, there is the wine cellar right next door. Well, they might as well not put the secret room just next to it, especially if it has no protection against intruders. Otherwise, they could have put away everything that could be compromising. And I maintain, at least a door should be put in the basement entrance.

"King's scholars"

Of course the brothers got nicknames at school because they're so cool and smart. It would have been stupid to be discreet. Especially since one was known for being stupid. And another wasn't a noble at all to begin with (he didn't get bullied for that? Lucky him)

???

How does he know it's for William specifically? They don't know they've been exposed and Milverton officially has no interest in William.

Explanations please!

Sherlock

And one booger for Sherlock, one!

Court case

I have nothing to say in particular about the trial, I don't know enough about law or how it was done at the time. For MTP standards, it's pretty good since we're shown the reasoning and it more or less holds up. Nothing transcendent (I'm pretty sure no judge will side with a street kid demanding blood, over a nobleman) but of a quality expected for this manga. The problem is elsewhere.

It's William again.

There is almost no difference between adult Will and child Will. He has the same mentality, the same habits, the same level of intelligence, the same impressive culture compared to his peers. Even considering that he lived in a bookstore and is a genius, it becomes hard to believe when he can speak and manipulate so well at such a young age and has such a vast culture. William has been perfect and superior since childhood. His adoption into the nobility, his aristocratic education and the years passed have made no difference. He is essentially the same.

(this is a problem his brother shares, being exactly the same as his adult version while he is far from having received the education necessary for it to be credible. But he is very secondary and does not have the ridiculously intelligent side)

And all this would not have been a problem if he had FLAWS. Flaws are important elements for a character, it makes them endearing and above all credible.

Look at Edwin from Dead Boy Detectives. He is very intelligent, has an impressive memory and a gigantic library of knowledge (and extremely kind despite a tragic past and strangely neither racist nor sexist despite the context in which he was raised). But if he is my babygirl, it is because he is a fucking diva (also, the other characters can shine independently of him).

William has no flaw nor weakness, no prospect of evolution, nothing. He's boring.

"The most famous trial in the world"

The newspaper tycoon only learned about this story while investigating William. Even Bond didn't know about it. So not very famous, no.

(to be fair, in french, it's just "of the century". Doesn't work either)

Cruelty

It's ridiculous how much they try to portray young William as cool when he should just be crazy. He's a kid who's 100% ready to cut up another person. The MC are only the villains they're supposed to be when it's cool and edgy, otherwise they're classic good Samaritans. When those two notions are opposite.

Higher Intelligence

You discovered his identity because he didn't think to hide himself when leaving a crime scene. Stop saying William is smart.

I repeat myself but by dint of repeating that the MC are exceptional, it has no weight anymore (especially if it is not compensated by their flaws).

Lord of Crime

Glad to see non-noble people being skeptical about the Lord of Crime but it makes no sense that he is already so famous and popular. When we see the main characters act, it is usually very discreetly, like with Jack the Ripper, or Irene. So how did he becomes so famous? The general public has no proof that he actually exists, it is just a rumor, but everyone treats him like a real person.

Bendley

A person who lacks finesse and is not very subtle. I wonder if he is sincere because it is so exaggerated but that is a question that the manga asks itself so not so much a criticism. And he is clearly treated with respect - more respect than Sherlock.

Reputation

It is sad that Milverton is supposed to be a very bad guy and not subtle (not a flaw tho), but given the situation in the US, and even in France, I can't honestly say that he is unrealistic.

In conclusion, this image I found which sums up William and his gang very well

[screambirdscreaming]

I used to like saying "gender is a social construct," but I stopped saying that because people didn't tend to react well - they thought that I was saying gender wasn't real, or didn't matter, or could be safely ignored without consequences. Which has always baffled me a bit as an interpretation, honestly, because many things are social constructs - like money, school, and the police - and they certainly have profound effects on your life whether or not you believe in them. And they sure don't go away if you ignore them.

Anyway. What I've taken to saying instead is, "gender is a cultural practice." This gives more of a sense of respect for the significance gender holds to many people. And it also opens the door to another couple layers of analysis.

Gender is cultural. It is not globally or historically homogeneous. It shifts over time, develops differently in different communities, and can be influenced by cross-cultural contact. Like many, many aspects of culture, the current status of gender is dramatically influenced by colonialism. Colonial gender norms are shaped by the hierarchical structure of imperialist society, and enforced onto colonized cultures as part of the project of imperial cultural hedgemony.

Gender is practiced. What constitutes a gender includes affects and behaviors, jobs or areas of work, skillsets, clothing, collective and individual practices of gender affiliation and affirmation. Any or all of these things, in any combination, depending on the gender, the culture, and the practitioner.

Gender encompasses shared cultural archetypes. These can include specific figures - gods and goddesses, mythic or fictional characters, etc - or they can be more abstract or general. The Wise Woman, Robin Hood, the Dyke, the Working Man, the Plucky Heroine, the Effete Gay Man, etc etc. The range of archetypes does not circumscribe a given gender, that is, they're not all there is to gender. But they provide frameworks and reference points by which people relate to gender. They may be guides for ways to inhabit or practice a gender. They may be stereotypes through which the gendered behavior of others is viewed.

Gender as a framework can be changed. Because it is created collectively, by shared acknowledgement and enforcement by members of society. Various movements have made significant shifts in how gender is structured at various times and places. The impact of these shifts has been widely variable - for example, depending on what city I'm in, even within my (fairly culturally homogeneous) home country, the way I am gendered and reacted to changes dramatically. Looping back to point one, we often speak of gender in very broad terms that obscure significant variability which exists on many scales.

Gender is structured recursively. This can be seen in the archetypes mentioned above, which range from extremely general (say, the Mother) to highly specific (the PTA Soccer Mom). Even people who claim to acknowledge only two genders will have many concepts of gendered-ways-of-being within each of them, which they may view and react to VERY differently.

Gender is experienced as an external cultural force. It cannot be opted out of, any more than living in a society can be opted out of. Regardless of the internal experience of gender, the external experience is also present. Operating within the shared cultural understanding of gender, one can aim to express a certain practice of gender - to make legible to other people how it is you interface with gender. This is always somewhat of a two-way process of communication. Other people may or may not perceive what you're going for - and they may or may not respect it. They may try to bring your expressed gender into alignment with a gender they know, or they might parcel you off into your own little box.

Gender is normative. Within the structure of the "cultural mainstream," there are allowable ways to practice gender. Any gendered behavior is considered relative to these standards. What behavior is allowed, rewarded, punished, or shunned is determined relative to what is gender normative for your perceived gender. Failure to have a clearly perceivable gender is also, generally, punished. So is having a perceivable gender which is in itself not normative.

Gender is taught by a combination of narratives, punishments, and encouragements. This teaching process is directed most strongly towards children but continues throughout adulthood. Practice of normatively-gendered behaviors and alignment with 'appropriate' archetypes is affirmed, encouraged, and rewarded. Likewise 'other'- gendered behavior and affinity to archetypes is scolded, punished, or shunned. This teaching process is inherently coercive, as social acceptance/rejection is a powerful force. However it can't be likened to programming, everyone experiences and reacts to it differently. Also, this process teaches the cultural roles and practices of both (normative) genders, even as it attempts to force conformity to only one.

Gender regulates access to certain levers of social power. This one is complicated by the fact that access to levers of social power is also affected by *many* other things, most notably race, class, and citizenship. I am not going to attempt to describe this in any general terms, I'm not equipped for that. I'll give a few examples to explain what I'm talking about though. (1) In a social situation, a man is able to imply authority, which is implicitly backed by his ability to intimidate by yelling, looming, or threatening physical violence. How much authority he is perceived to have in response to this display is a function of his race and class. It is also modified by how strongly he appears to conform to a masculine ideal. Whether or not he will receive social backlash for this behavior (as a separate consideration to how effective it will be) is again a function of race/class/other forms of social standing. (2) In a social situation, a woman is able to invoke moral judgment, and attempt to modify the behavior of others by shame. The strength of her perceived moral authority depends not just on her conformity to ideal womanhood, but especially on if she can invoke certain archetypes - such as an Innocent, a Mother, or better yet a Grandmother. Whether her moral authority is considered a relevant consideration to influence the behavior of others (vs whether she will be belittled or ignored) strongly depends on her relative social standing to those she is addressing, on basis of gender/race/class/other.

[Again, these examples are *not* meant to be exhaustive, nor to pass judgment on employing any social power in any situation. Only to illustrate what "gendered access to social power" might mean. And to illustrate that types of power are not uniform and may play out according to complex factors.]

Gender is not based in physical traits, but physical traits are ascribed gendered value. Earlier, I described gender as practiced, citing almost entirely things a person can do or change. And I firmly believe this is the core of gender as it exists culturally - and not just aspirationally. After the moment when a gender is "assigned" based on infant physical characteristics, they are raised into that gender regardless of the physical traits they go on to develop (in most circumstances, and unless/until they denounce that gender.) The range of physical traits like height, facial shape, body hair, ability to put on muscle mass - is distributed so that there is complete overlap between the range of possible traits for people assigned male and people assigned female. Much is made of slight trends in things that are "more common" for one binary sex or the other, but it's statistically quite minor once you get over selection bias. However, these traits are ascribed gendered connotations, often extremely strongly so. As such, the experience of presented and perceived gender is strongly effected by physical traits. The practice of gender therefore naturally expands to include modification of physical traits. Meanwhile, the social movements to change how gender is constructed can include pushing to decrease or change the gendered association of physical traits - although this does not seem to consistently be a priority.

Gender roles are related to the hypothetical ability to bear children, but more obliquely than is often claimed. It is popular to say that the types of work considered feminine derive from things it is possible to do while pregnant or tending small children. However, research on the broader span of human history does not hold this up. It may be true of the cultures that gave immediate rise to the colonial gender roles we are familiar with - secondary to the fact that childcare was designated as women's work. (Which it does not have to be, even a nursing infant doesn't need to be with the person who feeds it 24 hours a day.) More directly, gender roles have been influenced by structures of social control aiming for reproductive control. In the direct precursors of colonial society, attempts to track paternal lineage led to extreme degrees of social control over women, which we still see reflected in normative gender today. Many struggles for women's liberation have attempted to push back these forms of social control. It is my firm opinion that any attempt to re-emphasize childbearing as a touchstone of womanhood is frankly sick. We are at a time where solidarity in struggle for gender liberation, and for reproductive rights, is crucial. We need to cast off shackles of control in both fights. Trying to tie childbearing back to womanhood hobbles both fights and demeans us all.

Gender is baked deeply enough into our culture that it is unlikely to ever go away. Many people feel strongly about the practice of gender, in one way or another, and would not want it to. However we have the power to change how gender is structured and enforced. We can push open the doors of what is allowable, and reduce the pain of social punishment and isolation. We can dismantle another of the tools of colonial hedgemony and social control. We can change the culture!