#the narrative uncertainty of only one point of reference

[triflesandparsnips]

I always saw Izzy's "still it's a nice room, lots of possibilities" bit as Izzy thinking about what he'd do with the space once Stede is dead (now that he's gotten Ed to recommit to the plan) and trying to be a dramatic, menacing villain about it but failing because he's not very good at being a dramatic, menacing villain.

Don't get me wrong-- there are lots of things it could be, and that's definitely one of them.

But he could also be

off his stride because he didn't intend to be in there before Stede

off his stride because he did intend to be in there before Stede but didn't think Stede would, like, not even notice someone else was in the room already

off his stride because he didn't consider any kind of opening line to actually catch Stede's attention, what the fuck Bonnet

off his stride because maybe he did consider an opening line and it was a fucking neutral inquiry about the day's activity like a normal person and he's in the cabin because Stede is weird and lets all sorts of people in his cabin pretty regularly so one of them was rude first and it wasn't Izzy

or maybe this was entirely intentional on his part and this is him trying to transition naturally toward getting Stede to go through with the fuckery and apparently his idea of "natural" conversation is to compliment a room's general size and scope

or failing all that maybe it's not a natural transition for him but he's determined to be an upperclass version of polite to actively encourage Stede to do the fuckery (which we all know to be villainous but Stede doesn't)-- and it's fascinating to see that it's not until Stede tells Izzy to piss off that Izzy's mannerisms break down and he calls drops the politeness in favor of calling Stede a little shit

It's the thing where there are SO MANY possibilities. And until we know what's really up (assuming we ever know), they could all be true! SCHRODINGER'S CHARACTERIZATIONS. Delicious.

[headspace-hotel]

Just spent a couple hours digging into this book. I'm not even sure what has worse environmental impacts, the paper the book is made of or the opinions printed within.

Is "post-colonial" literary theory a joke? It's distressing that a book printed in 2021 by a reputable academic press can be so painfully Eurocentric, and I mean PAINFULLY. The philosophical and literary frameworks drawn upon in most chapters are like what some British guy in 1802 would come up with. In most of the chapters, every framework, terminology, and example is inseparably fused to Latin, Greek, and/or Christian philosophers, myths and texts, even down to the specific turns of phrase. You would think only Europeans had history or ideas until the 20th century.

Don't get me wrong, non-european and even specifically anti-colonial sources are used, and I don't think all the writers are white people, but...that's what's so weird and off-putting about it, most of the book as a whole utterly fails to absorb anything from non-European and in particular anti-colonial points of view. The chapters will quote those points of view but not incorporate them or really give their ideas the time of day, just go right back to acting like Plato and Aristotle and Romantic poets are the gold standard for defining what it means to be human.

In brief, the book is trying to examine how literature can shed light on the climate crisis, which is funny because it completely fails to demonstrate that literature is good or helpful for the climate crisis. Like that is for sure one major issue with it, it shows that people *have* written stuff about climate change, but it sure doesn't convince you that this stuff is good.

Most of the works quoted are rather doomerist, and a lot of the narrative works specifically are apocalypse tales where most of Earth's population dies. The most coherent function the authors can propose that literature fulfills is to essentially help people understand how bad things are. One of the essays even argues that poetry and other creative work that simply appreciates nature is basically outdated, because:

“One could no longer imagine wandering lonely as a cloud, because clouds now jostle in our imaginations with an awareness of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants” (Mandy Bloomfield, pg. 72)

Skill issue, Mandy.

The menace of doomerism in fiction and poetry is addressed, by Byron Caminero-Santangelo, on page 127 when he references,

the literary non-fiction of a growing number of authors who explicitly assert, some might even say embrace, the equation between fatalistic apocalyptic narrative and enlightenment…they are authoritative in their rejection of any hope and in their representation of mitigatory action as the cliched moving of deckchairs on a sinking ship

He quotes an essay “Elegy for a country’s seasons” by Zadie Smith, who says: “The fatalists have the luxury of focusing on an eschatological apocalyptic narrative and on the nostalgia of elegy, as well as of escape from uncertainty and responsibility to act." Which is spot-on and accurate, but these observations aren't recognized as a menace to positive action, nor is the parallel to Christian thought that eagerly looks forward to Earth's destruction as a cathartic release from its pain made fully explicit and analyzed. Most of the creative works referenced and quoted in the book ARE this exact type of fatalistic, elegiac performance of mourning.

I basically quit reading after Chapter 11, "Animals," by Eileen Crist, which begins:

The humanization of the world began unfolding when agricultural humans separated themselves from wild nature, and started to tame landscapes, subjugate and domesticate animals and plants, treat wild animals as enemies of flocks and fields, engineer freshwater ecologies, and open their psyches to the meme of the ‘the human’ as world conquerer, ruler and owner.

This is what I'm talking about when I say it's dripping Eurocentrism; these ideas are NOT universal, and it's adding nothing to the world to write them because they fall perfectly in line with what the European colonizing culture already believes, complete with the lingering ghost of a reference to the Fall of Man and banishment from the Garden of Eden. It keeps going:

“Over time, the new human elaborated a view of the animal that ruptured from the totemic, shamanic and relational past.”

Okay so now she's introducing the idea of progression from shamanic nature-worshipping religions of our primitive past...hmm I'm sure this isn't going anywhere bad

“While humanity has largely rejected the colonizing project with respect to fellow humans, the occupation of non-human nature constitutes civilization’s last bastion of ‘normal’ colonialism. A new humanity is bound sooner or later to recognize and overthrow a colonialism of ‘nature,’ embracing a universal norm of interspecies justice.” (pg. 206) 

OKAY????

Not only denying that colonialism still exists, but also saying that humans' relationship with nature constitutes colonialism??

Embracing limitations means scaling down the human presence on demographic and economic fronts…(pg.207)

ope, there's the "we have to reduce the human population"

Embracing limitations further mandates pulling back from vast expanses of the natural world, thus letting the lavishness of wild (free) nature rule Earth again” (pg. 207) 

aaaaaaand there's the "we have to remove humans from wild nature so it can be freeeeeee"

don't get me wrong like I am a random white person with no particular expertise in anti-colonialist thought but I think this is an easy one. I'm pretty sure if your view of nature is that colonialism involving subjugating humans doesn't exist any more and actually humans existing in and altering nature is the real colonialism so we should remove humans from vast tracts of earth, your opinion is just bad.

Anyways y'all know I have an axe to grind against doomerism so it was probably obvious where this was going but good grief.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Using Descriptors

A common pitfall of writing is the overuse of descriptors.

When adjectives and adverbs are used too liberally, it slows down the pace of the narrative.

Example

The young, male soldier nonchalantly stood with his back against the ornately carved wooden fence and angled his head upwards towards the sky, smoking and staring distractedly at the cotton-ball like white clouds that moved westward above the city. From her place at the window two stories above, Melanie vigilantly watched him as he slowly and repeatedly brought his cigarette calmly to his lips, expelling plumes of grey smoke with each measured exhalation. She wasn’t sure why, with so many thousands of private gardens in the city, this strange, unknown, soldier had chosen her garden—with its walls of knotty rhododendrons and the rows of rose bushes, only now coming into beautiful, red bloom, that her mother had planted the year before in an attempt to bring some color into their lives—to smoke in. Her uncertainty made her scared, and she began to feel a cold fear spread throughout her body, from her terrified heart, all the way to her extremities

Compare it to this version

The soldier stood with his back against the fence, smoking and staring distractedly at the clouds that moved westward above the city. From her place at the window, Melanie watched him as he repeatedly brought his cigarette to his lips, expelling plumes of smoke with each exhalation. She wasn’t sure why this soldier had chosen her garden—one of thousands in the city—to smoke in; and, if she was being honest with herself, she was scared.

The second version is easier to read.

The idea of the paragraph is simple, but when you add an abundance of adjectives and adverbs, the result is clumsy and harder to understand.

This is how descriptors slow down the pace of the narrative.

Writing Tip

The ideal paragraph lies somewhere between these two versions.

It’s not as streamlined as the second, but not as over described as the first.

Adjectives and adverbs serve an important function, but you should be skeptical of them.

When you see them in your own writing, ask yourself whether they’re necessary.

Another Example (Written by Jack Kerouac)

Anybody who’s been to Seattle and missed Alaskan Way, the old water front, has missed the point. Here the totem-pole stores, the waters of Puget Sound washing under old piers, the dark gloomy look of ancient warehouses and pier sheds, and the most antique locomotives in America switching boxcars up and down the water front, give a hint, under the pure cloud-mopped, sparking skies of the North-west, of great country to come.

There's an abundance of adjectives, but it seems to work.

This is partly because of the periodic sentence.

The sentence can be collapsed into “Here the totem-pole stores give a hint of great country to come.”

Every other clause is subordinate (or dependent), which naturally speeds up the pace at which it's read.

This is why, in this example, adjectives don’t slow down the pace too much.

Instead, they slow you down just enough to lend a contemplative sense to the vast scene unfolding before Kerouac.

As you see, adjectives and adverbs aren’t necessarily evil words that should be avoided at all costs.

They should, however, be used judiciously.

As you edit your writing, continue to ask yourself whether each sentence really needs its descriptors.

In Summary: Be skeptical of your descriptors, and the pace of your narrative will benefit.

Source ⚜ 100 Sensory Words Writing References: Worldbuilding ⚜ Plot ⚜ Character

[courtneedsatoru]

a music analysis on "if i am with you"

credits: "if i am with you" composed by yoshimasa terui, i'm citing an arrangement by _jacksonforte on musescore, @cmdrfupa and @tsukimefuku for the encouragement and motivation to write this

notice: amateur's take on music, my own interpretation because the same music can tell different stories to different people, you don't have to be an expert in music to understand, jjk season 2 spoilers, for some reason at some point, i switched to using capitalization, the researcher in me couldn't help it 💀💀

give a listen here: cover by Ru's Piano | i prefer her tempo over the original | the music is played in the gojo vs. toji scene | i reference this at 3:48 into the video in my analysis | or follow along with the sheet music here with the play button on musescore

this piece is played when gojo learns "hollow purple." when gojo learns this technique, he diverges (calculus joke heharhah) both in his strength and his perceived role in the world. gojo paves his own, indepednent path, and in my interpretation, this reflects in the elements and structure of "if i am with you." i will be exploring and sharing my take on how this piece enriches gojo's narrative.

in the opening section, we have a repetition of Fmaj7(#11) which sets a foggy atmosphere. The notes are played in a circular manner, from F up to C and back down to F. This represents a lack of direction and uncertainty. Gojo, born into the role as the strongest, does not understand why he has to use his abilities to save the "weak and helpless," why he should spare the members of the Star Plasma cult. The wandering and ambiguous repetition resonate with Gojo's ungrounded values; despite his flippant character, he follows the directionless current of what sorcerers before him did: fight to save lives until an unforeseeable end.

Sure, his title as one of "the strongest" provided some incentive to live up to those standards, but until Riko's death, he kept questioning the nature of how the jujutsu society worked. (I don't have that much evidence to cite because I haven't read the manga. This is what I picked up on from the anime.) This is until he finds a voice to guide him:

The note B serves as a pedal point, which involves sustaining or repeating a single pitch. This pedal point is a metaphor for Gojo seeking guidance from someone with a strong (aha i'm kind of wrong but you'll see) moral compass: Geto. As the harmonies beneath fluctuate from Fmaj7(#11) to em7 to dm7, representing Gojo's inconsistent or unclear stances, the pedal point represents unwavering values of Geto whose presence is steady and reliable. Gojo always looked to Geto to validate why they continued to fight. Gojo revolved around the pedal point of Geto's moral compass.

Until Geto's own compass wavers.

Here, we get a little insight into how Geto is losing his own sense of direction until it completely and gradually dissipates with a rallentando (not shown above, measure 31). However, it does not make sense to look at this from Geto's perspective. This is because Geto goes batshit defects due to hatred and spite towards the jujutsu system which would be poorly represented by a soft, gentle ending in Cmaj7.

Instead, I interpret this as Gojo relinquishing Geto's pedal point. This does not mean that Gojo has completely given up the ideology of Geto's inital beliefs. Rather, it is about transformation, a step towards independence. Gojo is giving up Geto as a moral compass, for he does not need to continue to seek guidance from his friend. To pinpoint the precise moment, it is when Gojo says the infamous "throughout heaven and earth, I alone am the honored one."

*Please refer to 3:48 in this video which is what I am describing

Keyword: alone. Gojo is ALONE the honored one. The perceived responsibilities of the honored one fall only onto Gojo, forcing him to further differentiate himself from the rest of the sorcerers, Geto included. This is represented through hollow purple, the epitome of strength and the embodiment of mastery at an unreachable level for the rest. Gojo's acquisition of hollow purple is the mark of how from then on, he will develop his own narrative, and that is what the music exactly does at a tempo.

Let's take a moment to appreciate how perfectly the music aligns with the animation. Because y e s. Anyways, a tempo marks the transition into the second section of an exploration of Gojo's independence. It truly is an exploration, signified by the sequences of call and response. The phrase above at a tempo is a call. The following is the response:

This sequence repeats once more, but in a different variation as it modulates from C major to F major. It's almost as if Gojo is searching for reassurance or validation as the strongest, but has no other choice but to trust his decisions and live with no regrets, thus leaning further into the role of the strongest.

For more information on Gojo Satoru's role as the strongest, please refer to @rahuratna's brilliant insights on him:

https://www.tumblr.com/rahuratna/757727672585617408/hi-rahu-my-nanami-loving-schmutt-reading?source=share

We then have a "flashback" (technically called A' section), or briefly relapse back to the theme of the pedal point:

The brevity of this section is reminiscent of Gojo noticing Geto's decline in mental and physical health, but ultimately choosing to overlook in the pursuit of strength and ambition. The desire to prevent what happened to Riko by refining his powers overwhelms any other sense or priority.

By overwhelm, I mean insanity. Just look at the fortissimo (meaning extra loud) and the nine-lets in the left hand. I n s a n i t y. I don't have many other things to say except how fitting it is for Gojo to be high with power at this exact moment and how the intense the rays of golden sunset are. Isn't it interesting how intensity can be layered through multiple media (i.e. background art, animation, voice acting, music, storytelling)?

To conclude, I want to talk about the way this piece ends. It's one of the most beautiful and melancholic endings I have ever heard. Starting at "Slower":

The note C as a pedal point. Suguru Geto, is that you???? See, he will always be with Satoru forever. Even when he may not always be physically present with Satoru, he will forever be that little voice that reminds him of all the memories, the beginnings, the end of beginnings

That G# is killing me. Just kidding

It's the damn B. Yeah, I'm gonna yap about one note. ONE NOTE. How dare you... LEAVE THIS ON A LEADING TONE!!!!! THE UNRESOLVED TENSION!!!!! THE ANGST!!!!!!! AND YOU DRAW IT OUT LONGER WITH A FERMATA (Do it again.)

Obviously I'm going to make a meaning out of it. Unresolved tension is the entire premise of Jujutsu Kaisen.

Example 1: Gojo's desire to rebuild the jujutsu society with powerful sorcerers who work together and foster a caring community to look after each other... to what extent did he accomplish this goal? And that's why I like leading tones, because it can set up a resolution that might be explored further, perhaps with the next generation of sorcerers.

An even better example 2: leading tones perfectly capture the dynamic of satoru and suguru. So close yet so far apart. So angsty yum. Never truly finished.

Additional analysis for the cover art: https://www.tumblr.com/rahuratna/757898687766757376/hi-rahuuuuu-my-mind-is-fresh-and-awake-its-one?source=share

[rottenshotgungames]

I have to publish this one before I can talk about stealth

Footfall Devlog 3

This Devlog will be covering the basics of what Footfall is and the challenges of making a game so heavily inspired by immersive sims.

So, without further ado:

What is Footfall?

Footfall is an occult-industrial stealth-action rpg inspired by Dishonored, Mistborn, and Bloodborne. It aims to emulate the systemic ecosystem and emergent gameplay of immersive sims, particularly the fast, creative, movement-centric gameplay of Dishonored.

You play as Gifted of the Watchman, the god of stories and action. You are functional demigods, arcane in nature and forever part of a great cosmic play of chaos and change.

The Other Half

Editing note: This portion of the devlog covers my design philosophy reasons for talking about this particular topic today. As such, its tone (which is academic in nature) is a bit different from the other devlogs as well as the other sections of this devlog. If you, at any point, find yourself confused or bored, feel free to skip ahead to the next section.

As far as I’m concerned, all action taken within Footfall can be placed within a venn diagram composed of two circles labeled “Movement” and “Interaction.” We’ve talked about the nuances and foundational mechanics of the “movement” circle in the last two devlogs (which cover the physics engine and power sets); to delve into the majority of Footfall’s design—which lies in the intersection—we must now explore the foundational mechanics of the “Interaction” circle. This begs the question, what’s the difference?

Here, “Movement” can be defined as mechanical levers that are only limited by the “physical world” of the narrative space as well as player knowledge. What can prevent you from moving? A wall, a chain, hesitation to open a door, the lack of a specific key, so on and so forth. Movement is defined by external barriers; some movement may be able to ignore some of these barriers, and some movement may occur without the consent of that player or their character, but it will still only be limited by the physical world and interaction there with.

“Interaction,” on the other hand, is best defined as mechanical levers that impact the narrative and its presented barriers, but are limited by character proficiency and comfortability. Interacting may allow you to break down a door, pick a lock, convince a guard to turn their head, but all of that is locked behind how much knowledge that character has about those specific subjects and how comfortable they are with the approach they take.

These definitions provide us with two major points of distinction:

“Movement” is defined by the external, “Interaction” is defined by the internal

“Movement” must always be certain, “Interaction” cannot always be certain.

This is why there’s little-to-no randomization within Gifted powers, because they are (often) a pure expression of “Movement” in this system.

Before we continue, I want to say that there are a lot of games that don’t use RNG task resolution, and instead rely on resource pools or group fiat to determine whether or not an action succeeds. To me, these games still represent a degree of uncertainty with their “Interaction” mechanics, but they often include far more “player knowledge” limitation and may even add another kind to the mix (such as “dramatic desires of the group” in the latter example). The definition of “Interaction” that I’m using here, while able to be expanded upon and therefore used broadly, is crafted to represent my conceptualization of it in specific reference to Footfall.

If you haven’t guessed it by now, today we’re talking about the

Dice System and Task Resolution

Yay! Everybody’s favorite subject (on Reddit, specifically)!

I’m about to be incredibly real with you. I love skill-based games. Traveller and Call of Cthulhu are my bread and butter (even if I never get to run the CoC), and Cyberpunk 2020 is a game I think about constantly. Skill based games have this degree of free form-ness and ability for mechanical characterization that I don’t really get from playbooks and classes, and it makes them a perfect playground for all my little character ideas. That being said, they do have a key flaw.

By trying to encompass everything through the LONGEST LIST EVER, you inevitably run into the issue of “What? Why??” You have to make decisions about the skills you include and what they encompass, and often the reasoning for such decisions can feel esoteric to an outside observer. An incredible example of this can be found within Cyberpunk 2020’s “Interrogation” skill. How does one normally go about interrogating someone? I would assume through a coercion of sorts, promising to give someone what they want or take away what they have, right? Now, that sounds like a combination of Human Perception (used to figure out what will impact them the most) and Persuasion or Intimidation (respectively). So why is Interrogation its own skill? I could not tell you for the life of me. This is the issue, if you go too specific while still having more generalized skills, you’ll get noticeable overlaps over and over again, and any attempt to list everything humans can be good at is bound to have a few generalized points on that list. Skill list based games are always playing this balancing game between overly-general and overly-specific with every skill, and they’re bound to mess up eventually.

So, if the problem is balancing the overly-general with the overly-specific, why not use a combination of general attributes to create specific interactions? This lead me back to where it all started: Modiphius’ Dishonored RPG. The Dishonored RPG uses a set of Skills (which define what you’re doing) and Styles (which define how you’re doing that thing) which combine to form your Target Number on a check (e.g. You decide to try stalling for time by telling the enemy your full plan from start to finish, hopefully giving your allies enough time to see it through and rescue you. That would be a check to Talk Boldly). To those who have read FATE Accelerated, Styles should look familiar. This manages to maintain the narrative aspect of interaction, cover all circumstances, and avoid the over-specificity that makes long skill-lists kinda clunky . . . well, if well-implemented, that is.

See, I have two big problems with the Dishonored RPG’s approach to this kind of task resolution:

It’s attached to Modiphius’ design limiting 2d20 system, which pisses me off INFINITELY!

It runs back into the specificity issue we discussed earlier, although to a far lesser extent.

Dice and Differentiation

For those that don’t know, 2d20 is TTRPG publisher Modiphius’ mainline, in-house system that they’ve used for basically every licensed RPG that they’ve made. It’s a dicepool system that uses a combination of some Attribute and Skill to form the Target Number that a d20 must roll under in order to produce a success. In each 2d20 system minor alterations are made to the foundation to flavor it for the specific IP being represented, but it’s still a copy-paste dice system and therefore nothing too substantial can be changed.

Here’s the issue: I think that they struck GOLD when combining Skill proficiency with Style of approach. You can achieve almost any specific solution to solving a problem in this framework, it’s absolutely brilliant—but they missed out by having them both act as a numerical bonus toward the same Target Number. These two attribute pools (as I will be calling them) represent completely different concepts, far more so than in most of their other games, which tend to have one acting as a subsidiary of the other rather than combining to form something new.

It was a specific goal of mine to have the equivalents of these two attribute pools be mechanically differentiated in Footfall’s task resolution system. The easiest way to do that seemed, to me, to be that one should impact the dice rolled and the other should be a flat bonus to the die roll. After that it was pretty easy to figure out which was which, it just makes sense for one’s proficiency in an area of skill to provide consistency.

Finally, I had to actually decide on the mechanical feature of the Style equivalent. A dice mechanic. I knew I wanted it to be a bit swingy, after all your Skill acts as your minimum, the die should be there to increase your maximum. Because of that same little piece of design, which had wriggled its way into my brain unprompted, I also knew I didn’t want it to be a dicepool (as much as I love them). Somewhat swingy, with variety, and increasing maximum rolls as determined by the die and the bonus? Why, that sounds like a variation on the dice mechanic of Jon Gilmour’s Kids on Bikes! Yeah, that works.

Two attribute pools, one representing character proficiency and the other being approach; character proficiency provides a flat bonus to the die roll, while approach determines how large the die is (on a scale of 1d4 to 1d12, excepting exceptional circumstances). It works, and it works well.

But there’s still that second issue to take care of

6 and 6

The two attribute pools in Modiphius’ Dishonored RPG both consist of 6 attributes. This is too many, for both of them. To explain what I mean, I have reproduced them both in full:

Skills:

Fight

Move

Study

Survive

Talk

Tinker

Styles:

Boldly

Carefully

Cleverly

Forcefully

Quietly

Swiftly

Do you see the issue here? The useless stats that make literally no sense? I’m sorry for ragging on you, Modiphius, but this one hurts.

Survive isn’t a real skill. Survive is almost always an overly specific form of either Move or Fight, and as such should be erased and rolled into them. The only reason it exists normally is to inform your stress track, making it the functional equivalent of D&D’s Constitution ability score. It’s getting cut.

Study is also overly specific and feels like it’s only there to learn information to help with Tinker, or maybe Talk in the case of a psychiatrist. If defined further as any means of gathering information, it’s even further stepping on the toes of Move (interacting with and spotting minute details within your environment), Talk and Tinker. Either way, erase it and roll its function into them.

Quietly isn’t a real Style. I’m sorry, it just isn’t. If I’m trying to Move Quietly, y’know what I’m actually doing? I’m moving Carefully so as to avoid making noise! Quiet makes absolutely no sense to me, and the only reason I can think that anyone would ever bother even trying to include it is as a stealth catch-all, which would actively make the game less interesting. Fuck you, it’s getting erased.

This leaves us with 4 distinct Skill equivalents (Fight, Move, Talk, and Tinker) and 5 distinct Style equivalents (Bold, Careful, Clever, Forceful, Swift). This leaves us just enough Style equivalents to work for the 5 dice we’ll be using, and a total of 20 different possible combinations of rolls.

Putting It Together

Alright, long walk for a short drink of water, but here ya go! The task resolution / dice mechanic as it appears in Footfall:

Each character has four Skills and five Temperaments. When asked to roll a check, the player will describe how they are performing the action then the Watchman will tell that player which Skill and Temperament is applicable to that description (e.g. “I’m gonna wait until I’m sure the guards have turned around, then slowly make my way across the room as silently as possible.” “Alright, that would be a Careful Move check”).

After the Watchman and player agree on the Temperament and Skill, the player rolls a die determined by the Temperament used (1d4 through 1d12) and adds a numerical score determined by which Skill is being used (+1 through a maximum of +10 unless stated otherwise) to the result. If the total result matches or exceeds a Difficulty set by the Watchman, the character succeeds.

- Skills -

Skills are aptitudes for particular tasks and represent a degree of knowledge and experience held by the character in the associated subject. Following is a list and brief description of each Skill:

Fight - Governs your knowledge of and ability to participate in violence.

Move - Governs your awareness of and ability to navigate your environment.

Talk - Governs your ability to understand people and navigate conversation.

Tinker - Governs your ability to repair, understand, and use technology and the arcane arts.

- Temperaments -

Temperaments are specific approaches to performing tasks and solving problems, and tend to speak to a character’s mentality and personality. Following is a list and brief description of each Temperament:

Bold - Brash, brazen, and passionately.

Careful - Quiet, tactful, and precisely.

Clever - Intelligent, calculated, and creatively.

Forceful - Blunt, direct, and violently.

Swift - Quick, abrupt, and instinctively.

Conclusion

I honestly want to keep talking about the mechanics that surround and interact with dice, but I think over 2000 words might be pushing my luck.

There’s a lot of talk online about what makes a good dice mechanic—probability curves, predictability, the feeling of making a roll—I’m not really smart enough to talk about those things. Hell, I couldn't even tell you what makes a good Task Resolution mechanic. What I can tell you is this: You can learn a lot from those who came before.

I talk quite a bit about disliking 2d20 in this blog post, and my disappointment with the Dishonored RPG is partially what compelled me to make Footfall, but the core of its Task Resolution encourages mechanical characterization in such an incredibly interesting way. For all the flaws I found and decided to fix in my run around, I probably would've never caught those if I were the one to create the first draft. Even then, I kept what made it interesting and combined it with other sources of inspiration to create a Task Resolution mechanic that's wholly my own.

My point is that you can always learn something, even from the things that you hate—whether that be a brilliant piece of design hiding amongst a million little mistakes, or how to avoid making those same mistakes yourself.

Self Promotion

Hey y'all. Thanks for sticking with me through this one, I know it was long . . . and maybe a bit rambling. That being said, we're done with dice mechanics (for right now)! Which means that I can finally talk about Stealth mechanics in the next post.

If you wanna check out my other games, and get updated when the Footfall free playtest goes live, follow me on Itch.io! If you're just looking for more Footfall status updates, or want to have an impact on the design, you can always join my public Discord (which is where I post all of the pre-public playtest changelogs). If you want more devlogs, and more rpg design talk, follow me here or on twitter.

Either way, I hope you have a great night and a great day.

[total-drama-brainrot]

Hello hello ophe 👋😇

Just gonna say hockey bro Gwen

That it’s that is the ask

But I have a question? If you mind answering I’m fine if you can’t answer it really 👽

Do you have any writing tips for an amateur fanfic writer? (Me😔) cause I have a hard time with characterization. Just tips on that would be great😊 but it’s kinda sad to see that some people think of Rice Krispies like that even though it has been tagged and all that 😔

But I wish you the best of luck ophe! 😎🥳

-Ass Stars anon

Hello hello, Ass Stars Anon! 👋😊

(Is it obvious that I know literally nothing about hockey?)

As for writing tips, I'm not exactly a qualified or professional author, but I'm more than happy to share some of the tips and tricks I use when it comes to characterisation.

Primarily, it's really important to understand three key aspects of the character you're writing; their habits, their motives, and their temperament.

When you're writing for a certain character, always consider not only what they're doing, but why they're doing it. You can have your characters do something entirely OOC if you can justify why they'd be doing it, either through circumstance or by utilizing the three key aspects.

For example, when Trent gets uncharacteristically aggressive towards Cody in "Up the Creek", it's still in character because it's motivated by his feelings for Gwen- Trent's already established as a bit of a hopeless romantic, so having him act irrationally due to his uncertainty over Gwen's returned feelings excuses his hostility (despite his usual laid-back nature). We see later, especially in Action, that Trent has a habit/tendency of acting irrationally when it comes to anything that threatens his love life.

Of course, habits can also refer to the little patterns and behaviours certain characters have; for example, Harold's continuous use of "Gosh!" is a habit of his- something that can be easily identified as a Harold Behaviour, and something super easy to add to his dialogue to keep it feeling in character.

Another good example of utilizing dialogue habits is (not to self promo here) how I write Alejandro's speech in my stories. Throughout the show itself, you'll rarely hear Alejandro use contractions and abbreviations (he'll say "we all" instead of "we'll", or "is it not?" instead of "isn't it?"), and his manner of speech is very formal (for a ~16 year old) both due to the fact that English is his second language and the fact that he's the son of a high profile diplomat. That's why, when I write for him, I make a point of keeping his written dialogue as contraction-free as possible.

I hope that my little tangent there helps at least somewhat!

And thank you for the concern! I think some people misconstrued what my intentions were with the RK fic, which is understandable given one of the primary concepts used in the fic is generally used in a sexual context (which is such a waste of a perfectly good plot device by the way! Honestly, I wish people would stop associating cool concepts with The Horny to the point where people trying to explore them as narrative devices are assumed to be creeps 😓) but the anon who initially accused me of unsavoury things has since apologised, so no harm no foul. Though my fic is properly tagged, I should've made it more apparent either in the summary or the author's notes that it isn't as, uh, 'distasteful' as some might assume.

I wish you the best of luck too! 😁

[unboxeddoll]

This isn't going to be a fun post to read, but Nikola Orsinov is a transmisogynistic character, even if Jonathan Sims didn't set out to depict a trans woman when he created her. I find her interesting, but it would be ignorant of me to not recognize her narrative of "former man traumatically robbed of his former identity and dignity to become a woman for the needs of another man, who now steals and wears from the bodies of others with the intentions of deceiving others and it's all very scary" as a microcosm of the narratives that plague trans women. Narratives that condemn their existence as something that cannot be willful, cannot be without the intention to deceive, cannot be without the intention to harm. I had hoped to engage with her character critically, but the Magnus fandom only plays into Jonathan's implicit transmisogyny. I don't intend to participate in that.

The human population cannot be divided into Bigots and Not-Bigots; bigotry is not something only specific Bad Individuals are capable of committing. Bigotry is also not always an obvious and actively hateful action. The thing about bigotry that is upheld by a society is that expressions of said bigotry, especially subtle ones, including unintentional ones, will be dismissed and accepted as par for the course, the harm done considered a negligible factor. Even if individual fans don't consider themselves Transmisogynists, even if individual fans are not writing fanfictions in which Nikola Orsinov pretends to be a human, cissexual woman to harm a human, cissexual woman, individual fans still take transmisogynistic actions in regards to attempting to engage with her character.

Nikola never states dissonance with her identity as a woman. Where do fans confidently gather the idea that she would identify as non-binary? She isn't human, but neither is Breekon or Hope; why are their identities as men never questioned? Nikola is only ever referred to with she/it pronouns, with "it" most notably used by Breekon and Hope, who are the only people the Archivist interacts with who were present for her creation. Why do fans question her pronouns, and gather the idea to refer to her with "they" or even "he"? Again, this disbelief in her gender canon is not applied to characters with comparable situations in terms of identity: Nikola was created from Joseph, but Helen was also created from Michael. Why aren't Helen's pronouns questioned?

I could write more, but I'll stop now before I further the impression that my intentions are to shame anyone. They aren't. Though, writing this post had me thinking. What would the reaction be had I decided to criticize any Asian character Jonathan has written? Some would become defensive, and deride my words as scolding. Others would recognize such protest as the prioritization of not being A Racist over not participating in racism, intentionally or not. If it would benefit the fandom to learn from criticisms of racism within the Magnus Archives, then there is little reason to expect otherwise in regards to criticisms of transmisogyny.

EDIT: Since revisiting her episodes, I've remembered that others (notably Jon) refer to her with it/its pronouns as well. Still, my point regarding the uncertainty of her pronouns stands. She uses she/her pronouns, and otherwise is spoken of with it/its pronouns, so there is still no canon evidence for they/them or he/him.

[frank-olivier]

Beyond Time: Exploring Divine Action in a Static Universe

Modern physics, particularly through quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity, has revolutionized our understanding of the universe. Quantum mechanics introduces concepts like uncertainty and entanglement, which suggest that reality is not as deterministic as classical physics once assumed. This aligns with certain religious views that emphasize mystery and transcendence in the universe. Relativity, both special and general, reshapes our understanding of space and time. It suggests that time is not a constant flow but is relative to the observer's frame of reference. This challenges traditional notions of a linear, absolute time often assumed in religious narratives. Some scholars argue that modern physics can coexist with religious beliefs by offering a more profound understanding of creation, existence, and divine action. For instance, the Big Bang theory aligns with the concept of a created universe, while quantum indeterminacy allows for divine intervention without violating physical laws.

From a presentism viewpoint only the present is real, and time flows from past to future. It aligns with everyday experiences but faces challenges from relativity. The Eternalism perspective views all points in time—past, present, and future—as equally real. Time does not "flow" but is a dimension similar to space. This theory is more compatible with relativity, which treats time as a fourth dimension in spacetime and it offers intriguing implications for theology. If all moments are equally real, then divine action could be understood as operating outside the constraints of temporal flow. This can lead to new interpretations of concepts like predestination or eternal life.

Paul Tillich was a 20th-century theologian known for his existential approach to Christianity. He emphasized the idea of salvation as an existential transformation—a change in one's being rather than merely adhering to doctrinal beliefs. For Tillich, salvation involves overcoming existential anxiety and estrangement from one's true self and God. By applying eternalism to Tillich's theology, scholars like Dr. Emily Qureshi-Hurst suggest that salvation can be understood as an eternal state rather than a temporal process, an ever-present reality rather than something achieved over time. This reinterpretation allows for a more nuanced understanding of divine action and human experience within a temporally static universe.

Beyond their traditional boundaries science and religion can complement each other in seeking truth and meaning and they can develop more comprehensive frameworks for understanding the universe and our place within it.

Dr. Emily Qureshi-Hurst: The Theology of Spacetime and Quantum Mechanics (Rahul Sam, September 2024)

Thursday, September 19, 2024

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Identity Crisis

I have asked myself numerous times if I truly am an INTJ. I always sound and tend to assert myself as someone so sure; I am not, nothing ever is.

In commemoration to redoing my layout fully (along with other personal reasons), I shall disclose a curious discourse today.

A four-narrative about being an INTJ, non-INTJs, MBTI is a tool, and the self. Let's get started.

One: Being an INTJ, Rarity

I can go so far to also say I am enneagram 5w6 and an INTJ female. If we are talking statistics, that is really rare. The enneagram type is rare already; the INTJ is also rare, but even more if it is associated to a female. Anyone would want to feel special enough and claim such a title. Not me. No.

Sometimes I wish I was simpler, more relatable, not so easily ostracized. INTJs are described to not care for the norm and others but that is only because of the trickster Fe function. The norm, other people's likes and dislikes— alludes us, deceives us. That manifests in not caring enough to fit in which is a more accurate thing to say. INTJs is a personality type associated to how a person ticks. So the human person in question still has the innate need to belong.

I sometimes wonder, in my search for belongingness, must I let the world shape me? I would rather not. I like being who I am, detached from the titles, the statistics, the stereotypes. I like being a human person, even if numerous times I am not deemed so.

With all these, I feel the necessity of proof and reference, so let me just disclose that mere statistics of INTJ females and 5w6s mean nothing to me. I feel rare. I feel alone. I have been told too many times that I am rare; from how I think, present myself, all of that accumulate to justify that I am in fact alone. I am not so preposterous to say I am alone at the top; I feel as though I am on level ground with everyone else but I am alone anyway. Too frequently people had called me mature for my age or even when I was younger; it just begs the question: am I such an novel anomaly to people that it is deemed mature?

It hurts to feel lonely in supposed compliments. It makes me sound even more of a jackass for suffering in supposed success.

Do not be mistaken, I take pride in who I am but not how other people perceive me.

Two: Non-INTJs, the certain uncertainty

I fear, sometimes, that I may be wrong. That I am not at all an INTJ 5w6. Surely, I am physiologically female but whenever I hear INTJ memes, stereotypes, and numerous people asserting them as such, I then ask, why do I still feel like I do not belong?

There are people well versed in the Jungian Theory that they can tell apart the non-INTJs so adamant to be one and the real ones. I don't really have a purposeful use or need to be certain I am one but I know it would feel quite reassuring.

Especially since I have learned early on that acting in my default settings is so alien and frowned upon that I often times wear masks. I like to believe my behavior, the mask, is to be merely be appropriate and proper— it is my cognition and of my design, so I am still who I think I am. If I were to act as I think, I will be subjected to being that asshole of a person so detached from human emotion that I cannot possibly have a sliver of consideration for others. Hence, when the masks is to protect myself, the inevitability of hurt makes it all the more painful.

Enough of this dramatic masquerade of words, the point is I got lost in my masks. Who am I, in the barest reality? Who is this person I take pride in so much?

I want to answer that more than being an INTJ, paradoxically, I fear that I may not even be an INTJ— that it was one of the many masks.

Three: MBTI not AS a tool but IS a tool

The personality typing like enneagram or the MBTI to me started as a means to be a better communicator, a better person all-round. Of course, for a job you would need tools and I chose the personality system of Carl Jung's 8 Cognitive functions to help serve my purpose.

It works. It works so well that my tool became synonymous to my being. I became the hammer and nail to my own coffin. I have buried myself deep into relying the system that I sound so silly now, fearing if I am even an INTJ.

The lesson I learned in all these was behaving certain ways in certain situations is similar to wearing the appropriate attire to the occasion. It is normal— it is not deceitful. Moreover, I remember the start of this all, silly of me to forget. Knowing I am an INTJ is the tool I use to navigate the world as a person. To make my meaning known and to understand others better.

Four: The Self

This feels like a personal essay; I did try my best to keep it lesson-like and emotive but at the same time impersonal and unrecognizable. I hope this breaks stereotypes? I find the memes amusing but dangerous. I find the descriptions much the same. People need to be more weary and cautious of those descriptions that illicit the barnum effect. I am too lazy to explain it here, but let us just say there are descriptions that we all want to be and believe we are. Such as: wanting genuine friends.

This is so common that I fear people leave digital footsteps towards a misguided understanding of who they are. That really takes away the utility of having a system to comprehend yourself and make yourself comprehensible. Which, in reality, is the whole point of giving our personalities, our cognition, a name— to be known.

I am too lazy to properly tag, I don't really care. Oh, and as I have said, this is to commemorate my full layout change along with. The masterlist is on the works and yes, you may ask if you want.

I doubt, with how this app works nowadays, that people will and that people will even find me anyway... since I don't like properly tagging as well.

Also, I hate to break it to people, I don't talk like this because of the masks but this is how I think. There are cases where I forget to mask and filter how I speak and people that hear me are left confused.

[moonlitfirefly]

“Women don’t need to make the journey. In the whole mythological journey, the woman is there. All she has to do is realize that she’s the place that people are trying to get to.” - Joseph Campbell, in response to queries about the interpretation of "The Hero's Journey", or its equivalent, for women

I loved Campbell's response as set forth in the above quote, because he viewed the hero’s journey as a journey toward wholeness, and in a patriarchal society in which men subordinate qualities traditionally associated with the feminine, the search for wholeness would lead to their reclaiming so-called feminine qualities and values. But it wasn't enough, not nearly - if only because of the dismissive assumption of wholeness being fully present in us as women, (and were it, none of us would be seekers, and fulfillment would be axiomatic). And so, it became necessary in my path to find a fitting alternative to Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey narrative paradigm. One which addressed the psycho-spiritual journey of women.

I found a wonderful (and recommended) model in Maureen Murdoch's "The Heroine’s Journey: Woman’s Quest for Wholeness," My only contention is the thing I always find fault with: Doing the same thing in the same way albeit replacing certain elements to represent as feminine. In this, Murdoch used the *exact* same ten-stage male-oriented model Campbell espoused - a linear process of point A to point B with eventual deliverance/gestalt at its finality - only with different phases attributed to each step of the path along the way.

This is not only in direct opposition to the way of the Feminine, I am not even sure it works well for the masculine, although it makes for a wonderful explanation of the linearity of mythos.

And so I set out to embody in art this ineffable mystery, believing deeply that when understanding fails, the non-verbal visual reveals things to our psyche-spiritual sense in ways that supercede words.

Our path (as women) begins not on land, but in water. Where we began, that place from which all life emanates; the womb and the sea. The subject of this painting is every woman; a priestess in a red dress, which represents our spiritual status, inherent wisdom and sensual nature - things we are often asked to deliver ourselves *from*. We do not begin as fools (see the entire tarot course, or Campbell's ten stages), but fully cognizant, fully aware. We do not separate from the Feminine, but completely embrace it. We are unveiled.

Were I more honest, I'd have envisioned her naked entirely - but symbolically, that reference would have been muted.

She (we) begins in darkness, as all women do, with the light of the moon and her lantern to guide her - but you will note many obvious and not-so-obvious lights which are also purposed to assist her along the way. She firmly holds the oar by which to steer her course, which also serves as the source of her magic in the form of the mythological staff (or wand). There are no ogres or demons or beasts present - because these are not the things we wage war against. And though the fog of uncertainty surrounds her - these are not mists of confusion. Her way is clear, as is the constant moon, our Mother.

I find that some of my paintings are questions, other are answers. I created this image as both.

To tell you to question where you are, what you are doing.

To give you a story - the story of your self and your own unfolding.

As a totem that whispers that your journey has no specific beginning, and no specific end, but is the ever-constant and ever-changing revelation of your own comprehension, life's purpose, and soul's meaning.

To remind you that you hold the oar, that you steer this course.

That you are seen, ever in the presence of light.

And that no matter how vast, how dim, or how uncertain?

You are never alone.

(Prints are now available here:)

https://www.etsy.com/listing/885529025/the-pilgrimage-limited-release-8x10

[lindensea]

What was your problem with the In the Heights movie ?

I am just curious.

I have only seen the movie and not the stage musical.

You said Jon M Cho didn’t understand the Central them.

please explain ?

Hello! Sorry this has been languishing in my asks for a few weeks. Honestly, it's been about two years since I saw the In the Heights movie, so i won't have as detailed of an answer as I want. And also, I wanna be clear that I don't hate the movie. There are a lot of things i like about it, although ultimately it's just not as good to me. There's something intangible about Broadway ITH that i love but can't quite explain. But i'll try!

First of all, cutting down Nina's family drama wasn't the right move. But that's probably not what i was referring to in the post you found, and this response is gonna get long, so we won't even talk about the Nina's parents of it all in discussion.

I think what i was referring to is the change in the movie's timeline and how that undercuts one of the central themes. On stage, In the Heights on stage takes place over the course of 2 days and nights (plus the next dawn). It's a small and contained story, just a glimpse into the lives of community for a couple days (which it literally states in the first song). The story ends when Usnavi decides to stay. Will the bodega be successful? Will Vanessa be happy away from Washington Heights? Will Usnavi and Vanessa actually go on a second date? Will Nina do well at school? Will she and Benny stay together? Will Usnavi ever go back to the Dominican Republic? How will Benny fare with no job? What will Kevin do now? Listen, we just don't know. AND THAT'S THE POINT. It's a contained little slice of life in a neighborhood. It's a small story! It's not a grand story of people achieving the American dream (a fashion line, market, and children, citizenship, etc.). It's people struggling through the present and not knowing if it will all pan out. In the Heights says the future is uncertain but we're not giving up and we're living our lives NOW. It's literally Right There in the songs.

"Everybody's stressed, yes! But they press through the mess Bounce checks and wonder what's next"

In the Heights I've got today! And today's all we got, so we cannot stop This is our block!

So turn up the stage lights We're takin' a flight To a couple of days in the life of what it's like En Washington Heights!

Keep scraping by!

"In five years when this whole city's rich folks and hipsters Who's gonna miss this raggedy little business?"

We pass the test and we keep pressin'"

Where it's a hundred in the shade But with patience and faith We remain unafraid

The movie is framed through the eyes of older Usnavi, an Usnavi who has already achieved his dreams (whether it's the copout bar it seems like he's at or the bodega he's actually sitting in), and it robs the narrative and songs of a lot of their power. We all know where the story will end. Sure it ends a little different but we know it works out. In addition to the older Usnavi narration, there are two flashforwards--one for Nina and Benny before she goes back to school, and one IN THE MIDDLE of the finale. That last one is my least favorite. How can you have lyrics asking if this place will still be around in five years WHILE having the characters there at least five years later?? It's...tone deaf. Giving the movie a typical flashforward to a Hollywood ending, it directly contradicts the uncertainty that pervades the whole story. It kind of changes the genre too. It makes In the Heights into a bigger story of achieving the American Dream, when all it really is supposed to be about is making it through the day through the power of community.

[talenlee]

UnFair Dealing in Cobrin'Seil — II

With the first article I established the importance of ensuring that, whatever fey are assumed to be by the world they live in and relate to, there have to be rules about what is truly not going to be true.

This is because I feel in worldbuilding there’s an important consideration for the idea of deliberately defined areas of uncertainty. It’s one thing to have a world where you know what’s true, but the world is more interesting if people have a range of competing beliefs and opinions about what may or may not be true especially when those ideas just inform their opinions about how they relate to the world.

And on the note of those ideas…

Fey Theories

These are just some theories, with particularly useful handles, that are used in reference for ways to treat the fey of the world. Note that these are the terms that academics would use to refer to them but it’s entirely possible a local community might have their own twist or specific alternative view of it. Especially in communities where those theories are being used to justify treatment of fey.

Mother Green Theory

The Mother Green theory is the idea that the fey realms, and everything out of it, are disconnected and distributed pieces of some fundamentally benign, universe-scale individual entity whose scope and conception is so vast and impossible that it is wisest to leave her uncontacted. This character, known as Mother Green, does not have an origin as we understand it, and that’s where the theory gets a little weird. Mother Green does however have opinions and wants and ideas, and aims that she wants to see made come true, which is why fey can do things in ways that seem sometimes confusing, ‘in aid of the story,’ as if they are also somehow an omnipotent third party acting on information they don’t actually have.

Part of the foundation for this myth is Orcish stories about creations of the world, and Eladrin narratives about the First Elves creating their own history into the world. It also is according with how Eladrin track their own history and based on some poetic language that exists in Elf and Drow language. Of course, Elf and Drow are not true fey and more and that may be a poetic image that came into the common language after that point.

One of the weaker elements of this theory is that what it presents, when really interrogated, is the idea that all fey individuals are somehow part of a larger, greater whole that may or may not be in control or influencing their abilities. This is a theory that some anti-fey people think is reasonable and why not to trust them.

The Great Deep Theory

Another idea is that the fey realm exists outside of reality, and it is itself the reality that existed before reality; that is, that the area known as the Prime and its entire cosmological linked spaces, is the void in which the realities we live in was formed. That is to say, before there was the Prime, there was the Great Deep, and the fey realms are just a boundary space between Prime reality and the Great Deep.

One of the things this is founded on is that everything that exists in reality seems to have parallels in the fey realms, and fey places seem to so easily make sense only to things from the Prime, but within those spaces there are notorious warnings about straying ‘too far’ – the idea that there is a outside or boundary or horror that cannot be safely navigated by anything from the Prime. Another element that plays into here is the idea of Far Realms, which most people see as not related to the fey realms because of how they seem to be inimical to life and the living, while the fey are kind of more often linked to the living realms.

One of the weaker elements of this theory is typically ‘well, then what?’ It implies that all of reality in the Prime plane is a sort of aberration from the natural fey default, and that that can create a feeling that the fey is ‘more important,’ or ‘more real’ than the Prime.

The Wyld Formation

There’s a term some fey use, which is ‘Wyld’ which means so many things as to be confusing in its execution. For this theory’s case, Wyld refers to the idea of a term used to describe some kind of energy that sapient creatures create and express that fey want to enjoy or experience. Wyld theory is the idea that the fey are a byproduct of something people generate, and that as they gathered and grew, the fey became more and more important and elaborate as a direct result. Basically, the fey are a byproduct of large, sapient communities.

Part of what informs this theory is the way that fey folk are highly localised. In a different community, the fey are different, and reflect values for that community. The fey that populate Abilen stories don’t look like humans and the Orcs are more likely to consider talking spiders and stones than they are actual humanoids. The people of Amenti have faeries who weave gold out of the walls of caves, and the people just one nation over in Visente are shadowy figures that live in alleyways and make deals for cursed trade goods. That the people of a place shape the fey of that place seems pretty reasonable when you start looking at them across those contexts.

It also relates to how gods seem to work, creating a suggestion that whatever gods are, it is also somehow related to this Wyld, but this unifying theory is less well supported.

One of the weaker elements of this theory is that fey are shaped so directly seems something people could weaponise. In a culture of social control, hypothetically, the fey would reflect that and the Drow represent the most protracted attempt to do exactly that, with their single central city and hierarchical breeding lineages. Despite this, they haven’t been able to will themselves into becoming fey, and the fey of the Underdark they crafted seem to be kinda more michievous and resentful of the Drow themselves rather than in alignment with their ideas.

It also tends to have problems where any individual fey person can go ‘yeah but that doesn’t work that way’ and the theory fails to explain why they can’t be changed by their society somehow willing them into having bat ears or something.

The Discovered Us

This theory is that the fey realms represent a sort of neutral operation that the world creates by dint of having life in it. It treats the feywild and shadowfell as equal and alternative responses to the existing Prime Material plane and therefore all structures and constructions that flow out of that being unrelated to any kind of individual entities in it. This means that anything about these worlds that seems to explicitly have an ideology is a byproduct of what people bring to bear on them.

This theory is best supported by the way there are conflicting theories about the nature of the feywild, expressed by the people who live there. After all, if there are ten conflicting theories about how the world works, it doesn’t necessarily follow that one is right, and the odds are that if nine are wrong, so might be the tenth.

The weakest element of this theory is that it seems a bit like a ‘so what?’ kind of theory. There’s nothing that really flows from this consideration and it doesn’t present much explanatory power for what the fey realms are like or what it means for fey people.

Time Parasites (the TErzocco Theory)

This theory is more niche because of one of the greater examples of fey magic in the world of Cobrin’Seil. At some point a boundary between the Szudetken Peninsula and the rest of the world was formed. That boundary presents a sort of net, where good stories about either side of the story are more challenging to remember or transmit. This boundary discouraged travel into the Szudetken and out of it, as both sides saw the other as awful.

(There are other things going on weird with the Szudetken that appear linked to fey magic, such as the way the maps in the country are just ruinously broken, but that’s for another, earlier time.)

In the Szudetken though there are the Terzocco Kingdoms and the Seibelmarsh university, which has its own theory – kept well hiddden and politically quiet – about what fey are. Based almost entirely on observing the nobility of Terzocco as being fey or fey adjacent, the theory runs that the entire fey realm is a parasite dimension, latched onto the Prime plane, and the fey are a form of life that wants to consume Prime resources to grow themselves. The resource, though, given that the Terzocco have seemingly infinite supplies of everything material people could want, and the way that fey magic often involves mysterious time warping, is time.

How do sapient people track time? Well, aside from some monks, they do it by telling stories, and in so telling, they turn time into something they can share and steal. And who loves stories to the point of it being threatening to others? Why, the fey!

Obviously, one of the weakest parts of this theory is that it paints all fey individuals as like, morally corrosive to reality, even if the idea at the heart of it is hypothetically interesting. Dio Baragh would probably find it pretty reasonable to treat the fey royalty like they’re all parasites, but that’s not the same thing.

Though it is pretty reasonable to treat the Terzocco as fundamentally untrustworthy scum. You should ask Rose about it sometime.

None of these theories are certainties! There may be things that any individual culture with its connection to the feywild may have to consider directly.

No, that’s next time.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[mariamga2024mi4017]

12 Years a Slave - Time to watch the film!

21/07/2024

Important facts to note down before watching the movie: -

Novel - '12 Years a Slave'

Author - Solomon Northup (Main character in the film)

Published year - 1853

Film - '12 Years a Slave'

Director - Steve McQueen

Released date - 2013

I'm finally going to start watching the movie so I can jump right into analyzing it and comparing the story in the novel vs what's shown in the film!

Before watching the movie, I created a template on 'Miro' to help me analyze important aspects of the film! (This template has similar topics to what Irushi gave us during our class analysis of the 'Psycho' film.) I will be using this template once I finish watching the movie.

While watching the movie, I hope to write down some notes so I can fully concentrate on each movie scene and the significant characters.

After movie thoughts:-

This movie was a tough one to watch. Having to sit through and watch the emotional and physical violence the kidnapped/ enslaved Black men, women, and children had to go through made me feel guilty and helpless.

The beginning of the film seemed a bit confusing to me because of the overlap between a future scene and the present linear narrative. Now that I think about it, it gives the audience a taste of what 'Solomon Northup' (the main character) has to endure in the future. We have been thrown into that dark, cold, harsh, and dehumanizing environment that Solomon was forced into before we see who he was as a freeman. (His perfect life)

When we see Solomon as a freeman, we can relate to him. We see him have the ideal lifestyle with his family and enjoy playing the violin at parties: although it is for a brief moment. This relatability helps us as an audience to place ourselves in his shoes. Whatever fear and uncertainty he has to experience in captivity, we experience it along his journey.

I believe the nudity in some of the scenes was uncomfortable a saddening to watch. It's so difficult to fathom how people could be treated in such a manner. To have to wash themselves out in the open for their masters and mistresses to watch, to be displayed naked in the market for buyers. Being described as 'fine beast' or 'fine creature' as if those black men, women, and children were animals are all enraging terms. These scenes showcase how these men, women, and children were dehumanized because of their skin color. (racism and bigotry)

Another important thing I noticed is the misinterpretation of the Bible scriptures. The 'Slavers' use biblical references to justify their abuse of fellow humans. (In their eyes, their slaves) The movie showcases that, 'when religion is abused, nothing good comes from it'.

e.g: - Although Mr. Ford may seem like a righteous and sympathetic man who wants to bring good morals to a place where it doesn't seem to exist, it doesn't change the fact that he is a 'slaver'. (He's still doing the wrong thing although he knows it is wrong)

e.g:- Edwin Epps is an important character to highlight in terms of abusing the words in the scriptures. His character proves that when religion is taken out of context, it'll show something different than what it's supposed to mean. (Jesus is the merciful lord that is being spoken about in the scriptures. However, Edwin reads the scriptures as an instruction guide for his slaves not to defy his dictatorship.)

I noticed quite a lot of symbolism in the film like the violin, the letter, the chains, etc. and these all link to significant parts of Solomon's story. I hope to type them down unto my 'Miro worksheet'.

For the time being, that is all regarding my thoughts on the film. The following video I came across on YouTube also helped me understand more about the violence portrayed in the film...

Points I wrote down while watching the film:-

I'll have to admit that I couldn't write as many notes as I expected. Felt like I could only write down my thoughts and opinions for after the film. Most of the scenes jump to sudden cuts as well (according to Steve McQueen's vision) So I just couldn't take my eyes off the screen to write down scene occurrences.

However, I have managed to write down the names of important characters and their significance to the story while watching the film!

That's all for this post! In my next post, I plan on posting the completed version of the 'Miro worksheet- table'. Thank you for reading :D

[nenekobasu]

isagi was like “this [lefty shot theory] will win against kaiser” and then it won decisively against ness who is the heart of the kaiser system meaning narratively isagi’s opening goal was a fulfillment of isagi’s pre-game promise to beat kaiser. isagi v. kaiser(system) ended in an isagi W at the very beginning of the match

ness pointed out that isagi’s shot was defective because it can only be shot from his right foot and was owned, kaiser (end of v.england) pointed out that isagi can’t shoot if knocked off balance and was similarly owned but the difference between this and the ness case is that when isagi was off balance he genuinely couldn’t shoot. then in ch.220 kaiser was literally tackled and still made the shot of shots

if you add to this isagi’s lefty shot being referred to as a “fake-out” (lorenzo) and a “bluff” (aiku) it feels like isagi’s ambidexterity isn’t a real solution because it doesn’t address the actual problem at hand, the “can’t shoot if off balance” issue. what’s scary is not just that this has been suggested by everything above but that isagi himself seems completely unaware of it (hasn’t analyzed or reflected on it). this is just one uncertainty that covers the entirety of v.italy but there are others which is why the more confident isagi is this match the more i get scared for him it’s like, c’mon, isagi... please, notice........

[werewolfloverr]

Why do movies lie to us?

Why do movies lie to us?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of a lie is an “intentionally false statement,” or, “a false statement made with intent to deceive.” Applying this to what we know about movies, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that movies habitually lie to us—life, when viewed from a camera, is always abstracted from its truth, and is only abstracted further through editing, animation, and constantly evolving cinema technology.

That’s not even to mention the writing. In the world of movies, it is widely accepted that there are tropes, symbols and signs, character archetypes, plot structures, and more, that form a universal language with which creators communicate to their viewers. Within many of these tropes and other elements, lies stereotype, and eventually cliché, all things that may not be true to life. Did women wear perfect makeup in the past? Are cheerleaders always mean? Do people break out in choreographed song and dance about their lives? Obviously not. No movie can singularly encapsulate every perspective and possibility, and some scenarios are not even applicable to real life—we accept that splitting up in a movie means the killer will show up and take advantage of the protagonists, but don’t think twice in our everyday life when you go left, and your friend goes right during the walk home.

Suspension of disbelief refers to the concept that in order to become invested and involved with a story, its characters, and its messages, the audience believes in what they are being shown, and believe that it is happening now, even if it is “just a story.” In other words, to engage with a movie, the audience will let the movie lie to them, accepting that those lies are intrinsically part of the universal language of cinema.

To some degree, suspension of disbelief is required whenever we interact with film as a medium. At the barest level, an audience accepts that their home video is showing them Christmas last year, they accept the feelings it brings about, while also knowing that the moment is still in the past. Another level above that, an audience accepts that a nonfiction documentary/biopic is presenting information in a cinematic form, while also knowing this happened in the past, and that certain elements are recreated and edited to make a more successful film. The lies incorporated through nonfiction movies are necessary to the function of the movie, which audiences can accept, and suspend their disbelief in order to be communicated with.

However, on the other end of the spectrum, audiences will accept and believe anything if the movie supports it. We accept fictional locations like a galaxy far away, Purgatory, a world inside a wardrobe, a haunted house, and never-endingly strange fictional creatures because we expect that we are going to be able to engage with the movie, its setting and it’s characters. We know everything is made up, but we know it’s all employed to tell a story.

Occasionally, the middle of the spectrum results in a film that can’t delineate between nonfiction and fiction. This creates a more complex web of lies to sift through, as the audience is left to decide what is and isn’t a lie and suspend their disbelief accordingly. One such movie is The Conjuring (2013). The credits claim that the story is “based on true events,” but that’s only according to the Ed and Lorraine Warren, two prolific ghost hunters/demonologist/priests(?) from the 70s and 80s, as well as circumstantial and unsubstantiated evidence. None of that matters, though, if the audience is willing to fully suspend their disbelief, like we do with fiction, or if we’ll resist and look for real truth and information, like in a documentary. For a genre like horror that requires uncertainty and unease, these complex layers of lies introduced by the narrative itself and by movies as a medium create an ideal environment for believable terror. At the point the audience first views The Conjuring, they are seeing a layer of lies, some that communicate and tell the Warrens’ story, and some that communicate the messages and intentions of the writers and director in an equally real and engaging way.

The Conjuring was hugely successful for the horror genre, scaring audiences just the right amount to thrill them, but never enough to fully believe it was a factual retelling. The audience accepts that some people may believe its true, and that, for a time, they will also believe its true. The narrative provided by the Warrens allowed writers to create a plot structure, with heroes and villains, with a distinct middle and end, with jump scares that even pay homage to The Exorcist (1973), and together they created an engaging narrative that supported the audience in their suspension of disbelief. The Conjuring was so popular that it resulted in a number of sequels and spin-offs, utilizing a similar formula and structure, again featuring the Warrens and their menagerie of demons. Some were eagerly anticipated, but most die hard horror fans will tell it to you straight: not a single one hit the mark, or even came close to the one that The Conjuring set. Annabelle (2014) came out the following year, with multiple sequels of its own. It would be followed by The Conjuring 2 (2016), and The Nun (2018), and some other related films here and there, but horror fans everywhere agree that everyone missed the mark.

It all comes back to suspension of disbelief. In the sequels that followed, the directors and writers seemed to lose sight of the balance of lies that made The Conjuring work. The scares made sense, the haunting and possession were believable, the Warrens were believable. As the movies began to grow in scale, the lies grew as well, but never a new, believable one.

Why tell a bad lie though? For the same reason a movie tells any lie, to attempt to engage the audience with the movie. Even when suspension of disbelief fails, movies still send us messages and ideas through the lies it shows us. Whether or not the audience actually engages with suspension of disbelief is actually inconsequential to why movies lie to us—if the reason is to communicate, as long as we hear the lie and have a reaction, then communication has occurred. Suspension of disbelief allows us to access deeper layers of communication and engagement, introducing new themes and interpretations, but it’s not necessary. It does show, though, that we can sometime judge a movie by how well it convinces us to believe it’s lies, both real and imagined, and that movies will always lie.

[phrobysha]

Blackness Arts

There is no telling how this whole directive will play out but trusting that everything happens for a reason and to have hope that all is for the better is even more compelling. Obvious is that so much has unfolded in the last couple of months or years depending on whose reading this journal but the fight is never over, infact it is only the beginning. Like every narrative read, written, recorded or even spoken, there is a much greater twist in what one has to say or reveal about life as we know it, knew it and will eventually know it. The language I’ve used is much like the universe, or university as it is universally recognized however like every individual touch, there are moments of uncertainty as to what one is trying to inform of as this happens to be more like a scrip of research than it is a backbone of factual occurrences.

Nothing new under the sun, a titled book by Kodwo Eshun is a metaphor I’ll adopt as it best represents what am about to refer to as nothing however farfetched is in actual fact fictitious for everything and all that we know stems from some point of assertion as relative to either the past, present or futuristic enrichment. There is good in this world and there is bad on this planet. Neither are the stem of human nature nor are they the root of our existence but a manifestation of constructive mechanism that precedes anything we could ever wholly fathom but in simpler quotation, design of game structure. In so introduction therefore with reminder that readers and narrators must possess a level of advanced imagination to decipher not only meaning but actual implication of what is being said, the revolution will not be televised as a great deal of intelligent individuals have duly noted, namely NWA, means we all as Tupac Shakur spoke that we must operate the easy way. Reasons are clear that being tactful is key and the method of operation even more so, militarily choreographed to eliminate any infringement of deployed counter attack must showcase skills of learnt observatory practice matched to experience of victimized subjugation.

The black man in the cosmos by Sun Ra is translated only in this case as a metaphor of Earth itself as a component in such very placement as one of the spheres in the universe. Go figure I’d say but break it down.