#the problem really isn't even interest but the fact that all of us are renaissance men so hiring help is kinda rare among indie people

[sidhedust]

I'm starting to understand that my scope is a little large for one person and if I really want to get this in and out I'll probably need help, but I'm not sure how to get it.

Ideally, I'd be the writer/main visual director, and then I'd have someone code and/or slap the script into Ren'py for each chapter...but I dunno! I might just have to tough the prologue out (and keep the scale small) and then from there recruit people or something? Ofc I plan to cough up dough, but I think people are less likely to form a team if they aren't making dough from the product sooooo...my only option looks like commissions/one time fees. IDK MAN the story is gonna get crazy and I don't want to axe so much of it just because I don't want to take to long

[anghraine]

Hello! Sorry if this seems out of the blue and naive, but I have to ask: Do you write about P&P on an academic level and if so, is the fact that you write thoughtful near-academic content about it on social media detrimental to that? Basically I am trying to ask this:

Are you allowed to write academically about something after you wrote so much about it on social media? Especially since what you write about it isn’t, you know, “memes”, but textual analysis?

Again, sorry if this sounds weird and ignorant, but I also wrote extensively about my favorite novel on here and I also one day want to write about it on an academic level, but I don’t know if it is “allowed”, so to speak?

Sorry if this is a personal question. You can answer it in private if you want to or ignore it.

Hello! It's no problem.

I've written about P&P for grad school (both in my MA and PhD) and a bit in my dissertation, but much more about Mansfield Park. That's about all I've done with P&P academically. I've actually had more ... let's say, success as externally defined with early modern (Renaissance) stuff, which I also specialized in. So there's that.

But there's also the fact that my style and approach are quite different between academia and fandom. My Tumblr style is probably more academia-adjacent than is usual (partly for autism reasons, to be sure), but it's still comparatively casual for me and integrates fandom conventions far more than my academic work, so even when I talk about ideas that I initially was thinking through in Tumblr posts, I handle the discussion differently in an academic context and tend to advance it very differently.

So there's not much of a connection in terms of my colleagues and there isn't really anyone who's going to say, well, this basic point in the larger discussion was already made in a different context on anghraine dot tumblr dot com, you don't get to talk about it. I do avoid talking about ideas that strike me as really novel or really specific to me on social media, though.

That said, while I've maintained some separation between my Anghraine social media presence and my academic one, a lot of academics rely on social media to publicize their work and engage with other academics (for better and worse) outside the glacial pace of academic publishing.

I used to have a Twitter account for that (before the reign of Musk) and I'd just ramble on about academic stuff, including Austen, and it was usually in respect to Austen that I'd have really interesting conversations with considerably more advanced academics than me. People aren't going to want to share so much that full publications are meaningless, but they do often share enough to participate in academic discourses.

But another factor for me personally is that I actually try to avoid mixing full-throttle academic work and the works I love the most. People talk a lot about finding a way to commodify integrate what you love most into work and making it a kind of vocation, but for me, at least, that does not remotely work. It just drains the joy out of something I used to love.

I could have specialized in sci-fi/fantasy scholarship, for instance, and it would likely have been much easier in some ways, but it would also likely have soured me on SF/F (my great love otherwise). That was one of the main reasons I decided not to do it and instead went with things that interested me quite a bit, but not too much. So I tend to shy away from thoroughly mixing things that are extremely important and joyful for me with academia.

When it comes to stories I love, I kind of relate to them like a dragon with a hoard, you know? Nobody's going to take this from me! So a lot of the things I write about academically have rarely or never shown up in my fandom content because I maintain that bit of distance.

So it can be a bit complicated. I would say that I imagine publicizing some ideas makes them less likely to be published, but at other times, it's helpful in connecting with people and becoming part of academic discourse. It really depends, which is probably not very useful despite the length of this response. But there aren't many people who are in a position to allow or disallow me to write professionally about whatever I want and am professionally equipped to discuss.

[polymathspoke]

“A general discussion of polymathia may be found in a treatise published by a well-read and well-travelled scholar from Hamburg, Johannes Wower (1603). ‘By perfect polymathy,’ Wower explains, ‘I understand knowledge of diverse things, taken from every kind of study [ex omni genere studiorum] and ranging very widely.’ The polymath is described as ‘wandering freely and with unbridled speed through all the fields of the disciplines’ [per omnes disciplinarum campos].” Peter Burke

“A talented person is talented in everything,” say those closest to me. And indeed — whatever I take on, it comes easily, with a sense of pleasure. Don't misunderstand me — this isn't boasting; it's simply a fact of my life. Yet, in the modern world, this kind of mind is not particularly encouraged.

In one of my stories, I wrote these lines, which helped answer questions that had long troubled me: “People strive to find their purpose, to uncover their talents, to claim their place in this world. Most choose one specialization and for years strike at a single target. Others, braver, embrace the path of universality — they try, they seek, they attempt to solve a riddle (whether their own or life’s, I cannot say). I don’t know if I’ve chosen the right path. My soul has always yearned for many things at once, and reason, in this matter, was of little help. I wanted everything and nothing, all at once. Tell me, please, what was my true path?”

The answer came in one word — polymath, a universal human, a Renaissance man. The definition tells us that a polymath is someone whose intellectual abilities, interests, and work are not confined to a single area of knowledge or a single field of application, but rather an individual who achieves tangible results across many disciplines. And so, there was my answer.

I am repelled by limitations. Why should I confine myself to one realm when I am truly good (really good) at everything? I crave more, something larger. I want to grow in every direction, contribute to every field, help other polymaths recognize and express themselves through whatever bursts forth from within, to contain the world itself. Multifacetedness.

I am learning all the time. I learn from the world around me. I study the mathematics of the universe, the art of life, the workings of nature. I ponder the reasons for existence. I gaze into the night sky, awed by the vastness of all that is. I learn from everyone I meet, from all who want to teach me. I invent, I create, I build. I am not defined by my career, my work, or my academic degree. I am something more. I will not be just one thing — I will be everything. I am a polymath.

I have no interest in sticking to a single path. I will do everything I’ve ever wanted to do in my life, and I will succeed in it all, because that is who I am. I see no limits.

Today, I am writing a detective novel, tomorrow — coding a computer program. In the morning, I read poetry, by evening—I’m rapping. This week, I’m studying French and Norwegian, next week — Latin or Ancient Greek. Right now, I’m fascinated by neural networks in the brain, and in a week, I’ll be diving into the Millennium Prize Problems. In my playlist, jazz mingles with rock, classical music with hip-hop. In my library, classical literature sits alongside philosophical treatises, works of psychology stand beside collections of ancient poetry, while textbooks on physics and mathematics border on texts about mythology. The list could go on forever…

If my view of the world resonates with you, I invite you to dive into the realm of polymathy [per omnes disciplinarum campos]. Thus spoke polymath. For all and none.

[a-flaming-idiot]

So like earlier today I found a video that was a compilation of Eda from The Owl House being a mom and that got me interested so I went and watched it.

And let me just say; DAMN! That was good!

Like this appealed to me so much that it literally reminds me of stuff I'm writing. Like just;

• Found Family themes

• A female protagonist and mostly female cast without them yelling "Girl Power!" and acting like it's something super unique and unheard of

• A Bisexual protagonist

• The romance in general just being really cute and well done and not feeling forced

• King being a really good sidekick

• Great creature design

• The animation for the fight scenes and Luz and Amity's dance being stunning

• A creative magic system that plays well to getting the characters to act creatively

• A nice redemption arc for Amity that made her a super enjoyable charcter

• Hooty being the rare character who is annoying in world but not as much to the viewers

• The world building, just the world building...

• The characters being so well done that I had to cover my eyes and mute it when they tried to steal the artifacts and get in trouble

• The humor and self awareness being just too great

• Me, someone who has problems crying to shows or fantasy stuff, nearly cried at the ending for being so well done

Like that ending was just too heart breaking! Or at least the ending of episode 18, which is kinda the ending as I wait for the next episodes. But it was just too good. Like when Eda and King come out and talk about how they care about Luz. And the fact Eda came cause Lilith took Luz and no one messes with Eda's daughter! Just when Willow and Gus came to the door and Eda had the gift in her hand and was all excited cause she was doing something for her daughter. And it hurt so much cause Luz got here cause she wanted to do something to help save her awesome-sorta-mom-owl-witch-lady. And the part where Eda is using up her magic to save Luz, and she just pretty much says goodbye in the most heart breaking way. Just the line "...I'm going away for a while. And I don't know if I'm coming back." Is just break me worthy.

And the part where Lilith is taking Eda away and says that she's with her family again, her real family. Just got me like, "YOU WANNA SQUARE THE F$#& UP?! CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANNA SQUARE UP!! YEAH YOU BETTER RUN B!$#&!!!"

And when Luz goes back to the Owl House, and she isn't crying when she walks in, she's just silent. And she looks around and King pops out all oblivious. And then it goes silent as she falls to her knees, and we don't hear it, but she's crying and Hooty and King run over to her in silence.

It's just too good and well done. And I think this just came at the perfect time, since I was losing faith in modern, western animation. Like after falling out of love with Steven Universe after Future and just looking back to see the last few seasons hurt. And just not likeing She-ra that much. Like I only wanted to watch for Catra, and even she got grating.

And just not getting into other recent shows just had me losing faith in the modern animation. Like I know we're in a Renaissance for animation but still. Then this came in and made me fall in love with animation again.

This was just the show I needed right now. And I thank it for that.

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

I'm watching the entire series of Game of Thrones for the first time. I've made my way to season 3, making sure to watch as many commentaries as I can. Last night I listened  to the Set Design / Costume Design commentary for S3 Ep 4: "And Now His Watch is Ended".

I know most historical costume Enthusiasts / Critics either don't touch, or make exceptions for Fantasy productions and on the whole I agree with that. But something about the Game of Thrones costumes (and how the show's popularity has impacted costume design on productions actually set in the medieval / Renaissance time period) has just really been bothering me.

(Perhaps you see what I mean here with Contessina De Bardi in Medici: Master's of Florence and her sneaky mini structured neckline)

It may be a couple of things, but lots of the ... insights from Michele Clapton shed some light on this for me. I have a few questions.

First: North of the Wall, we spend some time in this episode with The Night's Watch at Craster's Keep. Of Craster's wives, Clapton said [Disclaimer this is not an *exact* quote because I couldn't find a transcript anywhere and my sister sent back the Netflix DVD and I do not have an idetic memory - but the important parts of the comment are, in my own estimation, accurate] : "With Craster's wives I got this idea of them just having bits of rabbit, whatever they can get, woven with grass..." this raises in my mind, SO many questions.

Firstly - we ARE north of the Wall, yes? Where,  as we have seen, the ground is just about ALWAYS covered in snow, or 90% mud. So where is the grass coming from? And also what they are wearing is so clearly not grass?

This also provides a segue into my second question.

Do sheep exist in Westeros?

Why is it that this show has such an aversion to wool? Every man wearing protective clothing is wearing Leather (or rather I should perhaps say "vegan leather"). Every Hearty Weave (TM) appears to be an attempt at Linen; and every Fine Lady is wearing Silk satin, or if you're Olenna, silk brocade (in obviously hot weather, because naturally elderly ladies benefit from heat stroke).

I've not seen one woollen cloak. Not. One wool... anything really. I ask myself "Why?"

100% natural wool is wondeful. It's naturally flame retardant; it keeps you warm; it breathes well; it's soft in a light weave; it's strong in a heavy one; its water repellent. So what is with this endemic erasure of wool? Even productions like 2018's Mary Queen of Scots have had costume designers like Alexandra Byrne who, when searching for a durable fabric for cold and rainy Scotland, came out with a wardrobe comprised entirely of DENIM. Which,  as we all know is the WARMEST AND MOST COMFORTABLE of fabrics when damp. Now we all know Byrne's real reason for using denim is because it's cheap. The problem is Byrne tried to justify it by saying all of that guff about wanting a fabric that wears well in rain (Which,  I cannot stress this enough- denim does not) and, of course because denim would be "ReLaTaBLe". But I digress.

All that aside, perhaps the things that bother me most are components and composition. Which is where we get into the wooly (heh) area of me being a person with interest in HISTORICAL costume, critiquing a FANTASY series.

So let's just get this out of the way: I'm not saying that anything that the costume Department did with this series was "Wrong" [with one exception, but we'll get to that when we get to it]. I'm just going to say that I don't like the way it was approached, and my reasons on WHY. 

I think I have a modicum of justification for my opinions here because, fantasy is fantasy, yes but the concepts of "Fantasy" and "Medieval" have become so strongly connected that the line between them has become so blurred in the modern mind as to be almost non-existent anymore. We're in a strange cycle here. "Fantasy" was directly inspired by Medieval and over the years took more and more creative wiggle room because, the great thing about fantasy is, you can make it whatever you want it to be aesthetically. But as Fantasy and Medieval have become so intertwined, more and more creative license has been taken with the latter, so that the original inspiration has become beholden to imitate the art it inspired.

But I'll save my pontification on the modern eye and Medieval fashion for another post, and try to keep on track only as far as this affects my feelings on Game of Thrones.

My justification is that GoT is not just inspired by Medieval England/Europe in the broad sense that most Fantasy of the Sword and Sorcery variety is; it was SPECIFICALLY inspired by ONE ERA of English History, The Wars of the Roses [15th century] (with character inspiration from other eras, as recent as the 16th century).

The thing about being interested in Historical Fashion is, once you know it, you can't UN-KNOW it. For example, my understanding of the medieval approach to clothing composition is "Cut as little as you need to because sewing is tedious". You don't want to have to sew more than you have to because what's the point of that? Practically no clothing in the medieval period was tailored because why bother doing that when you can just sinch it with a belt, or lace it up the sides? Is any of that applied here? Nah. Because when we look at Sansa's dresses, look at those obviously machine stitched, perfectly pristine seams. ~whistles~.

I'll never throw shade at a costume department for using sewing machines, but I will shade them for not bothering at all to make clothing for a universe that has no sewing machines look like it was made in a universe that has no sewing machines.

  I can agree with not holding Fantasy series to historical standards - to a point. To wit: as long as it's believable IN-UNIVERSE.

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the GoT universe doesn't yet have Mechanized looms. Now I know that they make some pretty unreal lace in Myr, but I just can't think of any in-universe justification for the texture of Danny's blue number in season 3.

Another thing that bothers me is the proliferation of corsets and how those corsets are approached.

Here are some historical corset facts.

• the term 'corset' wasn't widely used to refer to structured undergarments outside of France until the late 18th century (1700's). Before tart they were called "stays" (16th-17th century) or "a pair of bodies" (15th-16th century)

• structured undergarments first appeared in the 15th century, as the bodice of under-dresses(kirtles) were lined with reed or Buckram to provide back and breast support and provide a smooth surface for the gown worn over it. It also provided a foundation for multiple layers of petticoats, so the waistbands wouldn't dig into your sides.

• Structured undergarments that existed independent of a kirtle or petticoat aren't in evidence until the 16th century (Elizabethan/Renaissance) and aren't widely used by all classes until the late 17th century.

• Most 16th-17th century boned foundation garments had straps, since they didn't reach down much farther than the natural waist,  unless they were designed with a high back.

• Corsets, stays and other structured undergarments were never worn without a shift/chemise/slip underneath because...

• Corsets chafe.

• Corsets are difficult to clean, but shifts are easy to launder. Shifts protect your skin from chafing and protect your very expensive corset from the oils produced by your skin

(Reproduction example of 15th century style kirtle, from Prior Attire. Source video here)

(Sansa's... corset here has this bizarre low back and 18th century style tabs on the bottom? It also seems to lace only down to her navel. Not quite sure what's going on here, it really doesn't seem to be supporting her at all.)

The reason I hate, hate, hate the way Sansa is costumed under her...  very suit-like gowns is  because she never ever is shown (so far) wearing anything under her corset; her gowns are all long-lined, flowing and loose fitting; and show only wears (usually) one petticoat under them. So in short, I dislike that Sansa wears a corset because Sansa has NO REASON to be wearing one.

◇◇◇◇Another Thing◇◇◇◇

I want to spotlight on a little thing from the commentary that really hits on one of my larger problems with the aesthetic interpretation of this show in general.

During one of the scenes with Stannis and Melisandre, Clapton mentions that they made Melisandre's hair a darker shade of red in season 3 than it was previously. She says the phrase "sort of makes her more earthy".

Yes. Let's make the FIRE priestess more EARTHY. LET'S JUST DO THAT. AS OF THIS SHOW ISN'T "EARTHY" enough.

There's this fantastic quote I read somewhere by GRRM about how he loves fantasy because it's colorful, where real life is gray and brown and olive and dull. Melisandre is arguably the most colourful character in the show/series. In the books, EVERYTHING about her is Red. And not just red. She's scarlet and crimson. When she's introduced there's this fantastic description of her wearing flowing robes of scarlet silk with slashes in it revealing a darker, blood red fabric underneath.

That was passed up for a monotone, very simply cut red gown and I can't stop asking myself why a designer would scrap something like that without even trying to pay homage to it.

This show just sort of takes everything colourful in Martin's world and MAKES it gray and dark for the sake of Gritty Realism (TM). I suppose that's part of trying to appeal to a wider audience, but I just find it increadibly visually uninteresting.

◇◇◇◇ONE MORE LITTLE THING◇◇◇◇

Is this the sofa from the Study in Clue?

???