#there doesn't seem to be as much structure

[bottledfool]

I don't see any point to you getting pedantic over the word "galaxy," since you used it in the post I was replying to, but yes, you're right, Union doesn't actually control an entire galaxy, not that it actually matters for the sake of the discussion. There also isn't a frame called the Infant Immolater, either, but you didn't seem to care as much about that one.

Anyway, to clarify, when I said "despite what the lore insists," I was referring to the fact that the lore's extremely whitewashed description of Union's actions post Sec-com is ridiculous to the point that it can easily be interpreted as in-universe propaganda. Despite verbally renouncing Sec-Comm's actions, Third Comm still benefits from and continues many of their colonialist projects from that era.

The fact that they have a really good reason for why they definitely need to keep working with slavers does not make integrating slavery into their economy any less evil. Sec-Comm undoubtedly had just as many reasons for why they had to do the same thing, and those reasons would have been just as valid. Instead of just accepting that it's a necessary evil, it might be more productive to consider what sort of government considers slavery to be acceptable as long as it doesn't have to look at it very often. In fact, I'm willing to bet the average Union official personally despises slavery (or at least they'd say they do), but they're not losing any sleep over the fact that Third Committee is allowing it to happen as long as it benefits the economy.

This is what I mean when I say they're Sec-Comm "with the visible edges sanded off:" They still do most of the awful things Sec-Comm did - they're still a neoliberal government entity who rules through the use of a corpo state, so unless one were to throw absolutely all logic out of the setting, it's undeniable that they do - but they no longer have the appearance of an overtly-fascistic government. They're palatable to the average citizen and maybe even to some of the people outside Union. But the long arm of Union colonization still very much exists, and the moment someone doesn't fall in line, it'll reach out and crush them.

The core issue with arguing that Third-Comm are good is that they have an extremely clear real-world equivalent: The EU. On the surface, the EU does a very good job of appearing reasonable and good, but anyone who has paid attention to the history of European politics understands that the EU was formed largely by colonial powers, and despite (frustratingly) gradual efforts at decolonization across the world, the EU's laws were still originally drafted with a colonialist mindset and designed to benefit the countries that formed it. Even setting all that aside, the EU has done some pretty reprehensible things over its lifespan, largely by funding and enabling smaller world powers to conduct these atrocities for them, thereby exporting political violence to a place where they can benefit from it but don't have to look at it.

When I say the lore insists otherwise, I mean that it lists multiple examples of exactly this sort of thing happening under Third-Comm, but just sort of handwaves it away as necessary and tragic. Despite the lore's insistence that these are unimportant when characterizing Union, I would argue that the actions of a government are, in fact, the most important thing to consider when characterizing a government.

And to your final point, yes, my point was that the government owns one of the four corpo states that rule just about everything in the setting. So, like I said, whether you prefer to think of the power structure in Lancer being four corpo states or one corpo states that three others rely on, it doesn't actually matter, because neither is good.

At the end of the day, you can come up with whatever interpretation you would like to use. But if you're planning on discussing the political messaging in a setting, you may want to take a look at what others have said about government entities that function very similarly to the one we're talking about. Look beyond the words the author wrote about their future utopia, especially when their idea of a future utopia is the EU. It might annoy you when some people characterize Lancer that way, but there are a lot of very good reasons for why they do that.

Armored Core: you're a cog in the death machine of capitalism and freedom lies in the hands of those strong enough jam the gears and break the apparatus. you should def use the Baby Flayer 9000 to achieve that goal btw

Gundam: war is fucked man, so much senselss death and killing all in the name of lofty ideals. anyway we'll be rolling out the orphan thresher as soon as next quarter

[hardsellingit]

trLukey and the psychological effects of long-term sensory deprivation

I wrote a short post on this yesterday but since you all seemed interested, here's a more comprehensive analysis of my thoughts on trLukey's interest in pain and how it relates to his time in the Null, and how long-term TSD (total sensory deprivation) may have affected him!

Prior to starting: All references to Lukey are referring to trLukey. I have studied this but it was a few years ago so please point out if I have any out of date info. Also, sorry if I go into Academic Language Mode lol. I'm happy to clarify my language or provide further sources!

ccLukey doesn't really play into this all too much, so it's more of an analysis of the concept rather than a more direct character analysis.

A large majority of studies about this topic reference torture, animal cruelty, self-harm and suicidal behaviours etc. I will not go into these, but be aware if you wish to read the sources and go further into this topic that it's a very common factor.

Also this post is just over 2300 words long erm. get comfy

So:

Let's look at long-term sensory deprivation. Of course, studies and research we have on this is significantly shorter term than what Lukey experienced, but it would be literally impossible to study that haha.

What we know about Lukey's Null experience is that he was shut in a small space (test tube), for an extremely long period of time (possibly years into the millions, we don't have a specific time frame). The only sensory inputs we are sure he had was experimentation done on him by the Keepers (Snail experimentation particularly) and what sounds like fairly rare occasions on which Newt would take him for walks. The Null itself is a dark, drab space. Structurally, it appears to be entirely constructed of obsidian and/or black concrete, with only what others have added to it being different from that. The Keepers are unable to talk out loud, and aside from teleportation seem to move in silence. They also all look the same. So Lukey was in the darkness and silence, generally entirely alone, in a tiny, confined space, and slowly losing his memory bit by bit. Let's examine the effects of this:

Memory

So the first point is, they wouldn't've needed the Snails to remove Lukey's memory. When deprived of external sensory cues and social interaction for extended periods, memory encoding and retrieval mechanisms begin to deteriorate, particularly episodic memory (autobiographical, time-anchored data). Without new experiences to anchor itself and it's cognition, the brain may lose connection from time, self, and continuity, seen in extreme solitary confinement [study], Antarctic isolation studies, and simulated Mars missions (eg Mars500, HI-SEAS). Over millennia, this would create near-total identity fragmentation.

Lukey would likely have ongoing trouble with recall, particularly linear recall, and a very distorted sense of time.

Social Hypervigilance

Long-term social isolation impairs the brain’s default mode network (DMN), which is responsible for self-referential thinking, empathy, and internal narrative. The DMN is especially sensitive to the absence of interpersonal engagement and verbal interaction. Lukey would likely lose the ability to internally rehearse social scripts or anticipate others intentions, leading to flattened social cognition, hypervigilance, or a skewed sense of trust. It's interesting if we see Lukey act as a 'social manipulator', and instead read it as social hypervigilance. The amygdala and anterior insula (tied to threat detection) become more reactive after social exclusion [study]. This leads to chronic scanning of the environment for social threats (real or imagined), aka social hypervigilance.

Social interaction is biologically necessary for humans. The brain treats social isolation similarly to physical hunger. Tomova et al found that after just ten hours of isolation, the midbrain reward centres (especially the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area) lit up in response to social images the same way they light up for food after fasting.

We often see Lukey overanalyze social interaction. On one side is that he uses every opportunity to study someone (see recently, during the conversation when Water told him she's a dragon, he was literally taking notes on it) and to pick apart conversations to find what he can use against people. Interestingly, he also does so with positive thought. Watch him and Pangi simultaneously while they talk to each other in chat, and you can see that Lukey will INCREDIBLY overanalyze Pangi's chat messages (reading Pangi as more bothered by Lukey making a joke, for example, when Pangi's actual reaction is very neutral). I feel I'm explaining this badly but it's something I've noticed. In another word, he assumes he's ragebaiting Pangi more than he actually is.

He also really wants reassurance from others, most notably recently during the trial chambers with Pangi when he was directly asking for reassurance and praise. Also, he can be not necessarily confrontational but definitely testing, pushing people (particularly Pangi) in various manners to see how they react, utilising lying and gaslighting to test people.

These can all be tied to social hypervigilance, with the absence of social feedback leading to overcompensation in social interaction and boundary testing and reassurance seeking to recalibrate one's understanding of social scripts.

[study]

Thalamo-Cortical Dysregulation (Hallucinatory Reactions)

This is sort of minor as we don't exactly see this, but the thalamus acts as a relay for sensory information. When incoming stimuli are absent, the cortex begins generating spontaneous activity, leading to hallucinations, confusion, and sometimes catatonia or emotional blunting. It's likely Lukey would've had hallucinatory experiences in the Null, which looking back at the streams with the doors/memories... there's something there for sure lol. But I'll leave this point since it's fairly short.

Touch Deprivation and Pain-Seeking

Now this is the big point. Everyone's pointed out Lukey's pain-seeking behaviour. We all know it, we've all seen it. This was the central point of my original post lol. So lets talk about it.

Prolonged absence of physical contact (aka touch starvation) often produces dysregulated sensory thresholds. Individuals become either hypersensitive or hyposensitive to input. In some, this results in pain-seeking behaviours (including self-injury or deriving comfort from harm), due to a release of endorphins and dopamine when the body is finally stimulated.

If Lukey experienced experimentation as his only tactile contact, he may have developed a neurochemical dependence on pain as a substitute for interaction. This would be especially likely in someone with a fragmented or deteriorating sense of body ownership, which would likely be the result of memory loss combined with TSD and lack of physical contact points. He may seek intense stimulus just to confirm that he exists. Newt’s walks would likely be the point that anchors Lukey’s entire social framework, so even painful interactions from the Keepers might be processed as attention instead of harm, especially if they broke the monotony or confirmed he still existed. Lukey might seek punishment, damage, or contact as a proxy for affection or attention.

I'm going to go ahead assuming you're at least generally familiar with dopamine and its role. Dopamine is generally called the 'happy chemical', but more than that it also regulates motivation, reward learning, pain, and withdrawal. When dopamine spikes, the brain adapts by reducing receptor sensitivity, which leads to stronger cravings and possible addiction.

Over time, this creates a dopaminergic deficit state. The brain’s baseline dopamine tone dips, and normal stimuli no longer register as motivating or rewarding. In Lukey’s case, this likely began during his time in the Null, where sensory input was minimal and inconsistent. Deprived of the sensory and social events that normally trigger dopamine release, his brain may have downregulated not only dopamine receptors, but also its ability to anticipate reward at all.

When Lukey now asks Pangi to hit him, attack him, etc, this may not be (exclusively) masochism in the traditional sense. It may be an attempt to stimulate systems that have been dormant, through the crash and surge of dopamine. And, Pangi is someone he trusts. In Lukey’s internal logic, being hurt by someone safe is likely categorically different from being hurt by someone cold or uncaring. A substitute for connection when more gentle forms of contact might feel deeply alien to him, considering for how long he completely didn't receive it.

Additionally, the predictability of being hurt by a trusted person matters. The Keepers, though consistent in appearance, were mute, expressionless, and unreadable. Pangi, by contrast, Lukey can read his reactions, even if imperfectly. This adds a layer of social feedback to the physical input, something his brain may crave even more than sensation itself. Lukey knows he can push Pangi into hurting him, understands Pangi's buttons and which he can and can't push, and he also knows that he's /safe/ being hurt by Pangi. He is so deeply assured that Pangi wont kill him, he's said it so many times (do it, you wont). He knows he can get that stimulation from him in a safe manner.

And just like in cases of non-suicidal self-injury, the behaviour may reinforce itself. Endorphins and dopamine are released not only in response to pain, but also in anticipation of it, so the cycle loops. Each time he’s struck or injured, his brain may offer a brief window of relief. Which then fades, leaving him back in the void, until the next jolt is needed. At which point he knows he can just push Pangi again, which means Pangi is likely associated with particularly positive 'rush' reactions in him :).

There can be positive, even stabilising, effects when someone like Lukey receives safe, consensual, predictable pain from a trusted person like Pangi.

Pain activates the sympathetic nervous system (fight/flight), but when it’s followed or provided by soothing or presence from someone safe, the parasympathetic 'rest and digest' system kicks in. This shift is thought to reset the stress response, helping the body cycle out of chronic freeze or shutdown states.

Weighted blankets, compression, or strong hugs work similarly, because they give clear consistent somatosensory input. The underlying mechanism is proprioceptive stimulation, which can calm the nervous system and help a person locate themselves in space, something Lukey likely struggles with post-Null.

Intense sensation also triggers beta-endorphins (I'm not getting the symbol lol) which blunt pain and create feelings of euphoria, calm, or even emotional warmth. Especially if Lukey anticipates pain from Pangi, his brain may spike dopamine in the mesolimbic pathway (specifically the nucleus accumbens). That means pain, when trusted and expected, can feel rewarding, because the neurochemical afterglow offers temporary relief from his otherwise blunted or dysregulated state.

Regular stimulation, particularly on different body areas, helps maintain the somatosensory homunculus in the brain (aka, the brain's 'map' of the body based on sensory input). In long-term deprivation, those maps degrade. Pain could act as an effective way to rebuild them.

Pain from someone else, especially someone emotionally significant, might also help Lukey distinguish where he ends and the other begins. After so long with no mirrored social feedback, even negative contact becomes a way to restore a boundary that otherwise feels undefined.

Safe pain from a safe person can retrain Lukey’s brain to associate sensation with care. In trauma theory, this is called 'corrective emotional experience': getting the opposite of what you expect (eg hurt followed by rejection and isolation -> instead, hurt followed by calm and staying and familiar reaction).

Lukey might also experience surges of oxytocin, the bonding hormone. That means even harmful-seeming interactions can build trust, if they’re safe, repeatable, and under Lukey’s control.

(I could go into a whole different thing about his control stuff but not here lol. Perhaps most relevantly, Lukey's pain-seeking behaviour represents a reclamation of agency that was absent during his Null experience. In the test tube, pain and sensation were imposed upon him without consent, warning, or ability to stop the experience. He was a passive recipient of whatever the Keepers chose to inflict. Now when he provokes Pangi, he's orchestrating the entire interaction. He chooses the timing, the method of provocation, the intensity of response he's seeking. He maintains the power to stop, escalate, or redirect the encounter. The psychological safety of this arrangement cannot be overstated.)

In a real world context, this is not a safe long-term solution. The nervous system may eventually adapt, requiring increasing intensity to get the same result. And if Pangi ever withdraws or refuses, Lukey might experience distress, confusion, or interpret it as rejection, especially if no other regulatory tools are in place. However, this isn't the real world, so it's probably fine <3

Attachment Dysregulation

Lukey's anxious-resistant attachment style, as mentioned by the CC, creates a particularly complex relationship with physical contact and pain. In attachment theory, touch serves as a primary regulatory mechanism: infants learn emotional regulation through caregiver contact, and adults continue to use physical connection for co-regulation.

For someone who experienced touch starvation during critical identity formation (even if that formation was rebuilding rather than initial development), the nervous system may struggle to distinguish between different types of physical contact. The brain, desperate for any form of attachment cue, might process even painful touch as preferable to no touch at all.

This manifests in Lukey's simultaneous craving for and testing of Pangi's boundaries. He seeks reassurance through physical contact, but his dysregulated attachment system doesn't trust that the contact will continue or remain safe. By provoking Pangi into striking him, he's essentially forcing attachment through sensation - creating a scenario where Pangi must respond to him physically, guaranteeing that momentary connection.

Thoughts

There's more I could talk about but this is getting very long lol. I was originally going to bring in my audhd interpretation of trLukey but decided to focus more on the general effects of TSD. The overall thought there is that in an audhd context, dopamine is already heavily restricted and dysregulated, which would exacerbate these effects, though honestly at this scale it wouldn't be that much different lol.

I'd love so bad for trLukey to talk further about how the Null affected him, but I'm not sure he will, so instead, I hope this gives you some insight into the effects of TSD and also the things that affect my personal interpretation of Lukey!

If you have any questions or thoughts on this PLEASE feel free to tell me. I, obviously, love this stuff deeply. Let's all play with our toys together <3

[psychotrenny]

Devising a unified theory of oppression, a single model that neatly explains the common roots and structure of all social inequality, is probably intellectually satisfying but I don't think it has much utility. Like they rarely reflect reality in a consistently accurate way, or if they do it's only because they views things in the most broad and abstract way possible. Which means that even when they aren't "wrong" they still aren't useful. Like maybe you can fit a lot of concrete phenomena into this model, but it's not a good framework by which to analyse and better understand anything specific. And frankly performing actual analysis with these models doesn't even seem to be the intention; rarely do these sorts of "unified models" have much apparent interest in actual revolutionary action. These theories interpret the world in various ways; the point is not to change it

[mallory-likes-whales]

The point of Superman as a character is that he is a moral paragon. The most important power to Superman's characterization is not his strength, or laser vision, or even his invulnerability; it is his moral compass. His other powers could be aggressive and brutal, the point of Superman is that he does not use them that way. Written effectively, Superman is the manifestation of a natural human wish that somebody would just set right whatever horrible thing is happening in the world. Judging Superman as a character based on his ability to do harm is a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes him interesting as a character.

Superman is, fundamentally, good. None of his other powers matter as much. In the animated Justice League cartoon, there is an episode where Superman is presumed dead after being sent thousands of years into the future. In this episode, J'onn j'onzz gives a speech at Superman's funeral. One line of the speach goes like this: "The Man of Steel possessed many extraordinary gifts, and he shared them with us freely. None of these gifts were more remarkable than his ability to discern what needed to be done, and his unfailing courage in doing it, whatever the personal cost." Superman's courage and ability to know what is right are what make him Superman. Is that realistic? No, but the man shoots lasers out of his eyes. Any critique of Superman that stems around the question of "but what if Superman did bad stuff" is fundamentally not a critique of Superman. There is absolutely a place for that discussion, but it is much more relevant to the real life questions about how much power we want to rest in flawed individuals. When the defining feature of a character is "paragon who is morally flawless", that particular discussion is not effective. The will always be evil forces that have godlike might and seem unstoppable. We need characters like Superman, because they represent the idea that good is always stronger, no matter what.

OP is right to point out that Superman's powers are extremely vicious when analyzed for combat. A lot of adaptations of Superman lean into the punching and lasers, in part, I think, because they look really cool. The fundamental point of superheroes, at there root, is to help people. Today there is a lot of stories that focus heavily on the big bad supervillains, but, structurally, a villain exists only as a punchable mechanism to put people in danger. One of the things that makes Spiderman interesting is his propensity for doing simple things like stopping muggings or other minor threats, because these actions are helping people. It is much easier to connect to a hero when they are doing stuff on a scale we can relate to. Superman struggles with this, because his powerset is so absurdly over the top. This makes it, as OP said, farcical to picture Superman fighting anyone other than an equally powerful villain. The idea of having real-world, flawed law enforcement with the strength and impunity of Superman is genuinely horrifying. The point of Superman is that he doesn't use them like that, that he genuinely cares about every single person regardless of position, that nobody is beneath Superman's help or above him stopping them. Yes, his powers let him punch a car in half. No, he can't cure leprosy. But find me a firefighter who wouldn't do anything for the ability to blow put a housefire in a single breath. Find me a search and rescue team who wouldn't do anything for the ability to look through a collapsed building, then move anything that's between them and the people who need help no matter how big it is. Find me someone who could stand in front of an advancing army and tell it to stop. Superman has the powers of a god, and he uses them to make things better for everyone he can.

Superman, written wrong, is a bad character. I cannot deny that. He is, objectively, very simple. Trying to add angst, or any sort of grey morality for that matter, fundamentally breaks the very thin thread that makes him, at least to some, compelling. There is definitely something to be said for the idea that no good character can be flawless, but in the case of Superman, his flawlessness is what makes him good. He is not supposed to be realistic, he is not supposed to be flawed, he is supposed to be perfect. He is the bar for what a hero should be. Well written stories about Superman acknowledge this, stories written without this in mind tend not to do a good job of characterizing him, because again, without moral perfection, he is fundamentally impossible to make work as a hero.

"Kal-El of Krypton, the immigrant from the stars who taught us all how to be heroes."

- J'onn J'onzz, Justice League

I do completely understand not liking Superman, he is extremely simple, and really isn't that well utilized in the vast majority of his stories. On the other hand, I think that ignoring the non-violent applications of his powers for the sake of an argument is unfair to the ideals that Superman represents.

Also zero shade to Brennan Lee Mulligan's comic, I read the first few chapters and it looks like a marvelous look at superheroes in a world of systemic issues where villains don't really matter. I think it wonderfully engages with a side of godlike heroes that isn't explored often, I just think that's a very different conversation from "[Superman] doesn't have a lot of options besides domestic terrorism [without apolitical villains to beat up]".

I know the superman desconstruction thing is the deadest horse there is by now, but yet still can't help but find it kinda... farcical? that he's gassed up as this inspiring paragon of virtue in-universe and out, but his entire powerset revolves around his incredible capacity for violence. He's a jesus figure but instead of curing your leprosy he can punch a truck in half. The laser vision is just the punchline, there, no wonder all the evil supermen love pulling out that card.

It even frustrates me that "evil superman" is the only way anyone seems to take this character to task. Even a good-natured kansas kiddo would struggle to use those powers constructively. He's lucky his universe keeps softballing him apolitically evil supervillains to beat up, cause otherwise he doesn't have a lot of options besides domestic terrorism.

[upper-eepy-sleepy-girl]

I saw this in a most annoying fandom poll, and oml yes. I don't think the tlt fandom is bad, but when I was reading Gideon The Ninth this bugged me so bad

Like I loved Gideon The Ninth, and I want to read the other books (I just haven't gotten around to it bc I'm a slow reader and have been reading other books) but the flow of Muir's writing infuriated me so much. The ideas and concepts were amazing, and from what I've heard about Harrow being in 2nd person it sounds fun... but damn the flow of the sentence structure is bad

One thing that infuriates me is the way a character will starting speaking, be interrupted by a "said" or some form of action, and then keep talking. It ruins the dialog for me

Like I went to a random page and immediately found an example.

I understand how Muir thought she needed to clarify who was saying what, but having it in the middle of the sentence interrupts the flow. I think it's because she's trying to seem more classy by doing that, instead of starting ever paragraph with "[blank] said ..." but it doesn't achieve that and only disrupts the flow of reading.

And a few pages later there it is again. Except this time it's not even describing who's speaking. It just interrupts the dialog for no reason

And again

And again

I had more examples Ill rb with but I hope this gets my point across. It happens so often it pulled me out of my immersion while reading.

It happens almost every single page.

And look at the last example. There's no reason for that last sentence. There's no reason for a "she asked eventually". It's just padding that ruins the flow.

And a lot of this probably comes from the fact that I'm a slow reader. It's been 6 months and I'm only 400 pages through House of Leaves but it becomes hard to ignore.

I love the ideas and I can't wait to read the other books. But that just bugged me so much while reading I had to put the book down so many times.

[mirror-to-the-past]

So. This could be reaching, but it's a strange observation I'll bring it up anyway: Ralsei's introduction as a hero in the main part of the prophecy breaks up the rhyming and rythmic structure earlier established. It's founded exclusively in end rhyme and masculine rhyming structure (i.e. "light, night," "dire, expire," "send, end"), and Ralsei's introduction as a hero both breaks it up and doesn't have a complete rhyme that matches with the format. Ralsei has an assonance-based rhyme that matches the vowels of Kris and Susie/Noelle's sections ("-arts," "eart," "ar"), but the consonants with "-rk" in "dark" ending are noticeably harsher than the "-s" suffix ending in Kris and Susie/Noelle's portions: "Dark" does not mesh as well with "Parts" or "Heart" to the ear.

On how he also just breaks up the flow- Again, everything else is written in rhyming pairs of two, while Ralsei's out here breaking the main flow up to be tacked on the heroes list at the end, which is a three-rhyming structure that seemingly doesn't repeat afterwards.

Now, the other non-rhyming bits that are isolated events that don't fit in the flow of anything makes this observation seem a little less poignant, but it just seems different to me for the main "idea" of the prophecy to have such a noticeable break in its structure like this.

Where am I going with this?

Uuuuh, I don't know, could mean lots of things.

"Dark" being isolated is meant to further reference Ralsei's "alone in the dark" idea- he's a loner, he doesn't belong, he's not meant to be paired off with complete poetic structure, even when included in a prophetic trio of legend- there's a felt gap between him and them.

More conspiratorially, perhaps, like how I speculate more certainly about Susie, he wasn't meant to be there. While Susie seems to be a misinterpretation of the prophecy where she took over the role as "hero" for Noelle, Ralsei's line seems to be completely inserted- as thought he wasn't meant to have a line there in the first place. Perhaps, through his apparent omnipotence of his place in a game, knowledge of the Player, and knowledge of all other manner of secrets, he came upon the prophecy meant to spell destruction and doom for the Light and Dark worlds, wondered if he and potentially a sacrifice on his end could forestall their doom, and sought to count himself in with the supposed "original" two heroes' lot. He'll take whatever pain he can for them, after all. Maybe, similarly to what I suspect of Kris and is canonically evident with Susie, despite the burden and paranoia it brings him, inclusion in the Prophecy fulfills Ralsei's desire of company and love. He's glad to have whatever pain might come to him at the end, so long as he was able to have fun with friends along the way, so he "took the deal" to be included, or something (Again, similar to what I theorize of Kris- I've seen people speculate from the "demon-summoning" throwaway line that Kris might have semi-knowingly summoned the Player in an attempt to feel spark and power in their life again, which semi-backfired, of course).

Of course, that brings up the obvious counterargument of "Well, if Ralsei was able to insert himself into a prophecy that originally didn't include him whatsoever, why does he apparently feel so much despair at the disaster ending, and that the Prophecy can't be changed?" And to that I say, uhhh, idk man, I'm just throwing weird things I notice at the wall to see if any of it sticks. Maybe his inclusion has been the only bit that has seemed to change, but he was hoping his presence would do more, so then he lost hope? Maybe for whatever reason, he's withholding more information, and his "I want to believe it can change!" is somehow misleading? I have no idea!! I just wanted to talk about rhymes

Edit: What appears to be full main body of the Prophecy (like, leaving out the lines that don't match with anything like the "Toothpaste and then boy" ones) as it aligns with the typical rhyming structure:

A world basked in purest light,

Beneath it grew eternal night

If fountains freed, the Roaring cries,

And Titans shape from darkened eyes

The light and dark, both burning dire

A countdown to the earth's expire

But lo, on hopes and dreams they send

Three heroes at the world's end

The first hero, the cage with human soul and parts,

The second hero, Girl, with hope crossed on her heart

The third hero, the prince, alone in deepest dark

The knight which makes with blackest knife

Shall duel with heroes, strife by strife

They'll hear the ring of heaven's call

They'll see the trail of hell take crawl

And then, when all hope is lost for the tale

The final tragedy unveils

To save the worlds, there is only one way

[unknown]

---

Again, it's a very slight difference, and the preemptive "the first, second, third hero" portions definitely distract from the rhyme of the word itself. Just a minor interesting detail to me that I can overthink about, lmao.

[qoldenskies]

fire at will and where we went wrong actually have a lot of similarities in structure and im only now realizing how deep that goes. i have one whole gimmick

[thecurioustale]

To be clear, I dislike that kind of framing too. Or, rather, I dislike reductive attitudes about it.

Fip can correct me if I am mistaken, but I gathered that she was talking about ambiguous jobs that don't have clear definition (which is often manifested in their baffling, corporate-speak job titles) and seem to exist independently of their company's overall success. I also think that, in articulating this concept, she was not necessarily endorsing it fully, but only in part.

My point in saying that is that I don't think she was taking a reductive view of it, and neither do I. I think there really is some variation in the absolute importance of various economic roles. But I think this variation is a lot subtler and less intuitive than many people give it credit for, which is also why I can say that I think I largely agree with you as well in your defense of what you describe as "work that does not appear to be linked directly to labour."

All economies have concentric layers of specialization that are increasingly far removed from the center as a given economy grows more sophisticated, developed, elaborate, and integrated. In positional terms, no role is more "important" than farmers and the people who directly manufacture critical goods (like clothing and basic tools), inasmuch as farmers et al. are at the core of the whole thing. And, to your point about subsistence farming versus industrial farming, "farmer" is definitely an oversimplification of the modern agricultural sector as a whole, which also includes the various types of farm workers, the chemical manufacturers, seed producers, truckers, warehouse workers, etc.; all of these jobs are immensely important. And this gives us some foreshadowing about the importance of roles father out.

But this measure of importance with respect to a role's proximity to the center is somewhat misleading; it is akin to saying that the most important people in history were merely the ones who lived first, without whom none of us would exist, whereas if Rick from 1952 had never existed much of the present-day world would still be intact. This is circumstantial. It doesn't really say anything about what they did so much as where (or when) they have existed in the larger structure of human civilization. Many people only go so far in their thinking as to say "The world can survive without commercials but not without food." And, in this conceptual framework, the hierarchy is absolute. But this isn't highly accurate in depicting reality. Food may be more important than anything else, but to the extent that we measure our quality of life in terms of our way of life, food is inextricably tied to other material goods and services. And, interestingly, it is actually the farther away you go from the center, into increasingly specialized and esoteric roles, that you discover the kinds of jobs that allow our modern technological society and thus our way of life to exist: aerospace workers, computer programmers, electricians, etc. Without them, we would not be able to interface with and access food the way we do. (Among many other benefits.)

I fully recognize the importance of highly-specialized roles. Of course I do; not only am I pretty smart, but I also have a career built relatively far out in the periphery. I am proud of the work I have done, precisely because I recognize the value of it, which you articulated yourself so well in your paragraph about what it is marketers do. And I have always tried for my work to live up to its potential, and, when it comes to the work I have done in SEO marketing, that means that I have always fought against the ever-growing slop that pollutes the Internet (which is a major criticism I have of that industry and many of the people who work in it).

I understand that these kinds of roles are often instrumental to, and directly responsible for, growing the scope of a company's operations, tightening its efficiency, and increasing its fiscal performance. And I understand that these kinds of roles often make life a lot easier and safer for the people out in the field.

Nevertheless, with regard to my original post and the implicit endorsement of the premise of absolute degrees of importance that went along with me posting it as I did, saying that I think my most important job to date involved none of my lifelong-built creative talents but simply required bleeding, I honestly do rate some jobs as being absolutely more important than others, regardless of their position in the economy with respect to the center and the periphery.

Many roles in the world of work are basically shortcuts or facilitators, things that make life easier or more convenient. Their nature is supplementary and/or complementary. In the commercial writing and editing I've done, as opposed to my creative writing an artist, I very much understand that my work is not as valuable as many of the other roles in the pipeline. In fact I have often felt uncomfortable because of this over the years, because I have frequently worked with clients who clearly understood that my contribution was far less important to their efforts than that of their core workforce.

To give an example: A recent client of mine contracted me to edit, provide research for, and occasionally compose environmental study reports for real estate developers. My work made the end results easier to read, more accurate, and more professional-looking. But I was not the one physically going out into the field, digging sample plots, testing soil, delineating wetlands, etc. The utility of this company to its clients lay almost entirely in that area. And I also wasn't a part of the necessary administrative apparatus; I didn't balance the books or any of that stuff. And, in the end, my role was phased out because the company owners just didn't see the value. And even though I tried my best to make the case to them for the value of my work, I understood where they were coming from. They probably would have been better off spending the money hiring another ecologist. Yeah, without my touch their reports have more errors and don't read as well, but...well. The regulators who read those reports don't care. And a simple typo or a badly-written paragraph isn't going to trip them up, because they read thousands of these reports and know what to look for. You see my point?

I do think my work is valuable. But it's not as important as the work of actually going out in the field and doing the thing. Operational roles are fundamentally more important than support roles. The former need the latter, to varying degrees of dependency, in order to reach their potential. And, in that collaborative holistic respect, yes, the vast majority of work roles are important. But, at the end of the day, it's the people who make the food and wipe down the tables; the people who lay the pipes and clean them out when they're blocked; the people who service and maintain the airplane and the people who fly it...it's the people who perform these roles that do the most important work of all.

That's my opinion, anyway. And, in my original post where I discussed my appraisal of the relative importance of my lifetime of work, I certainly have the right to make that assessment of myself. If I were to conceive some abstract measure of contribution to the world that is a function of number of people helped multiplied by the depth of help provided, I think my hundreds of liters of blood plasma have probably done more good in the world than all the product descriptions, and metadata improvements, and topical articles that I've ever been paid to write. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but not so bitter, because I've never really seen it any other way. I do that work to pay the bills. I don't compare it to my art. Art is essential. Art is quintessential. I would rank my art as having contributed more good to the world than all my paid work combined. Art helps make the drudgeries of day-to-day life bearable. Art liberates and elevates the mind and the spark. Art breathes meaning into atoms and stories into the wind.

But no one wants to pay for art. 🙃 That's the true bitter pill.

you know there is this concept of bullshit jobs, right, this idea that some jobs are there for absolutely no reason at all except as a cancerous growth of red tapping or uncontrolled bureaucracy, and on a more reactionary bent there is this feeling that certain jobs are bullshit jobs because they dont "produce anything" or "dont make a widget" and are either woke nonesense like a proffessor of gender studies or pointless faffing about like an analist of logistical operations.

not to fall too deep on that kind of thought but i am a bit glad that my job has a certain ammount of timelessnes to it. "interpreter" the person in charge of translating a conversation between two people who dont speak the same language. i could believe that this is a job that existed in some shape or form since the times of ancient mesopotamia when long distance commerce between nations truly kicked off.

there is such an immediate palpable clear cut service that is being provided. i like that.

[locria-writes]

FMFTBS Character List

i updated the demos for this, but in case you just wanna see the insanity and the reason I was this 🤏close to screaming. no, this is not everyone pertinent to the overarching story or even directly related to it, but everyone who matters in this microcosm. the idea of having to flesh out families beyond a couple generations and work on the lesser mentioned clans makes me faint of heart.

gyx, qls, and mc are excluded for obvious reasons. i don't think they need more background for now

Great Sōng

Qílián Xūn | King Fù of Sōng | b.5833 - d.5890 | A lascivious and frivolous man who cared more for pleasure than statecraft. Father of Qílián Shèng, and died of a stroke after being bedridden for several years.

Gāoyáng Qiū | Queen Consort Gāoyáng of Sōng; Princess of Shǎng | b.5845 - d.5881 | A woman of a mournful disposition who longed to return to Shǎng, and wished for her son and brother to be close. Mother of Qílián Shèng, and older half-sister to Gāoyáng Xiǎo. Died after a long illness.

Ruǎn Chéngjuān | Queen Dowager Ruǎn of Song | b.5849 | A dancer who became a favoured concubine and eventually rose to become a queen. Mother of Qílián Píng (b.5863), Qílián Jìng (b.5863), Qílián Lì (b.5866), Qílián Zhēng (b.5869), Qílián Huà (b.5874), Qílián Róng (b.5880), and Qílián Jī (b.5882).

Mèng Zhēnzhū | Consort Dowager Mèng | b.5836 | A proud woman who clawed her way to power, and guards her surviving children with her life. Mother of Qílián Yīng (b.5855 - d.5874), Qílián Yuè (b.5857 - d.5888), and Qílián Xīn (b.5875).

Shū Yànfēi | Consort Shū | b.5870 | A gentle woman who embodies the virtues of a noblewoman, and was once expected to become Qílián Shèng's legal wife. Mother of Qílián Yè (b.5893) and Qílián Lín (b.5897), and younger sister to Shū Chóngrán.

Shū Chóngrán | Marquis of Yánjǐng; Grand Chancellor of Sōng | b.5867 | A clever and sharp-tongued man who climbed the ranks with his own wiles. A close friend of Qílián Shèng, older brother to Shū Yànfēi, and husband of Qílián Xīn.

Qílián Xīn | Princess Yánjǐng of Sōng | b.5875 | A spirited and haughty woman who was shielded from the worst of world by her older brother and mother. The favourite younger half-sister of Qílián Shèng, and wife of Shū Chóngrán.

Qílián Yè | First Prince of Sōng | b.5893 | The son and heir presumptive to Great Sōng. Son of Qílián Shèng and Shū Yànfēi.

Qílián Lín | First Princess of Sōng | b.5897 | The only daughter of Qílián Shèng and Shū Yànfēi.

Kuàng Liánghuā | Consort Kuàng | b.5833 - d.5856 | A concubine of Qílián Xūn; mother of Qílián Yuàn (b.5850 - d.5883) and Qílián Fú (b.5855). Died of illness.

Jiāng Yīnuò | Concubine Dowager Jiāng | b.5841 | A reclusive and solitary concubine of Qílián Xūn.

Qílián Fú | Prince Míngyǔ of Sōng | b.5855 | A brother who was once a contender for the Sōng throne, but he bowed out as he didn't wish to fight with his brothers. Son of Kuàng Liánghuā.

Qílián Zhēng | Prince Lìyǔ of Sōng | b.5869 | A brother who was once a contender for the Sōng throne, and still considered a possible heir for Qílián Shèng. The brothers have never gotten along. Son of Ruǎn Chéngjuān.

Xiāo Měiyù | b.5873 | Your dowry maid who's been with you since childhood. She's the youngest child of an impoverished scholarly family.

Lǐ Wéntài | b.5866 | Qílián Shèng's trusted eunuch who's accompanied him since they were children.

Chāo

Rǎngsì Cōng | King Zhēng of Chāo | b.5818 - d.5892 | Your ambitious grandfather who arranged both of your betrothals. He sought to see his grandchildren with lofty titles. Died of old age.

Rǎngsì Jiàn | Crown Prince Shàohàn of Chāo | b.5844 - d.5888 | Your eccentric but prodigal father who intended for you to succeed him. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Rǎngsì Hào | King of Chāo | b.5874 | Your steadfast and charming younger half-brother. He never wanted to become a ruler, and was content to live quietly as your unrelenting supporter.

Yú Xiāng | Queen Consort Yú of Chāo | b.5874 | Your sweet-mouthed and easygoing childhood friend, now sister-in-law. The daughter of the Duke of Nányōng and his first wife Qílián Yīng, niece to Qílián Shèng, wife of Rǎngsì Hào, and mother of his children.

Yìn Bìzhēn | Queen Dowager Cípíng of Chāo | b.5848 | Your level-headed and sensible mother. Wife of Rǎngsì Jiàn, mother of yourself, Rǎngsì Miào, and Rǎngsì Lù.

Jǐng Shīyì | Queen Mother Císhēng of Chāo | b.5845 | The soft-spoken and gentle concubine of your father. Mother of Rǎngsì Hào and Rǎngsì Wén.

Áo Wénxù | Grand Queen Dowager Yǒngxiào of Chāo | b.5818 | Your wise, if exhausted, grandmother. Wife of Rǎngsì Cōng, and mother of Rǎngsì Jiàn and Rǎngsì Qīng.

Rǎngsì Miào | Elder Princess Ǎofēng | b.5881 | Your idealistic and kind-hearted younger sister. Wife of J�� Wěizhōng.

Rǎngsì Lù | Elder Princess Níngrén | b.5883 | Your free-spirited and stubborn youngest sister.

Rǎngsì Wén | Prince Róngrén | b,5883 | Your quiet and studious younger half-brother.

Jǐ Wěizhōng | Marquis of Ǎofēng | b.5877 | Your now-confident and well-spoken brother-in-law. You remember him as a shy and sensitive boy who sought to join the older children when playing. Husband of Rǎngsì Miào.

Rǎngsì Shào | Crown Prince of Chāo | b.5892 | Your nephew, and heir apparent to Chāo.

Rǎngsì Liáng | First Princess of Chāo | b.5895 | Your older niece.

Rǎngsì Chán | Second Princess of Chāo | b.5899 | Your younger niece.

Great Xià and Shǎng

Chúnyú Dí | Emperor Xiáng of Great Xià | b.5883 | The young emperor crowned by the Shǎng-Chāo-Sōng coalition in 5889. A sensitive but perceptive boy whose power is exercised through Gāoyáng Xiǎo, his brother-in-law and guardian. Nephew of Qílián Shèng.

Gāoyáng Yùn | Empress Gāoyáng of Great Xià; Princess Tiānhuì of Shǎng | b.5886 | A timid and sickly girl, she is the only child of Gāoyáng Bǎo and Rǎngsì Qīng, and married Chúnyú Dí to secure Gāoyáng Xiǎo's position. Wife of Chúnyú Dí, cousin-sister (paternal cousins of the same clan) to Gāoyáng Xiǎo, and your cousin.

Gāoyáng Bǎo | King Gǎi of Shǎng | b.5840 - d.5891 | An unflappable and scholarly man who sought to soothe his nephew's wild temper. Your uncle-in-law, and Gāoyáng Xiǎo's paternal uncle, and later his adoptive father. Died of a stroke.

Rǎngsì Qīng | Queen Rǎngsì of Shǎng; Princess Huáxián of Chāo | b.5844 - d.5889 | Your forthright and proud paternal aunt who doted on her nieces and nephews with equal delight. Wife to Gāoyáng Bǎo, adoptive mother to Gāoyáng Xiǎo and Gāoyáng Tíng, and mother of Gāoyáng Yùn. Died after a long bout of illness.

Gāoyáng T��ng | Princess Héjìng of Shǎng | b.5874 - d.5890 | Your cheerful and charming childhood friend and cousin. Niece to Gāoyáng Bǎo and Rǎngsì Qīng, she died of an alleged brief but serious illness after visiting Qílián Shèng.

Gāoyáng Lǐ | Prince Qiáojūn of Shǎng | b.5821 - d.5878 | A melancholic and unlucky man who outlived two wives before perishing with the third, and most of his children dying unnatural deaths. Older half-brother to Gāoyáng Bǎo, father of Gāoyáng Qiū by his first wife Lady Chúnyú, Gāoyáng Jùn by his second wife Lady Mǐ, Gāoyáng Xiǎo, Gāoyáng Tíng, and Gāoyáng Mǐn (b.5877 - d.5878) by his third wife. Died in a carriage accident.

Duānmù Huì | Princess Consort Qiáojūn of Shǎng; Princess Hóngyì of Zhèng | b.5848 - d.5878 | The third legal wife of Gāoyáng Lǐ, and mother of Gāoyáng Xiǎo, Gāoyáng Tíng, and Gāoyáng Mǐn. Died in a carriage accident.

Chúnyú Zhū | Prince Zhānyù of Xià | b.5847 - ??? | A strange and erratic man, and heir to a long-line of misfortune. The grandson of Chúnyú Ēn, and claims descent from the unfortunate, but upstanding dead clan of the Qīdiāo. Disappeared in 5889 without a trace.

Qílián Yuàn | Princess Consort Zhānyù of Xià | b.5850 - d.5883 | Wife of Chúnyú Zhū, half-sister of Qílián Shèng, and mother of Chúnyú Dí. Died in childbirth.

Great Yuán

Shàngguān Lǒng | Emperor Dé of Great Yuán | b.5836 | An ambitious and overly-inflexible man who overthrew his brother and launched the nation into a bloody civil war, now known as the Bǎohù Coup after his princely title. Older half-brother and former regent of Shàngguān Bó, father of Shàngguān Jié and Shàngguān Huáng.

Shàngguān Bó | Emperor Wěi of Great Yuán | b.5839 - d.5888 | A carefree and simple man who was ill-suited to his position. Despite his lack of ambition, he sought to give his only a son a better chance at ruling by forging alliances with the other great clans. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Shàngguān Zhāo | Crown Prince Qǐ of Great Yuán | b.5873 - d.5888 | A quick-witted and honey-tongued boy who was your late betrothed. Unlike his father, he displayed a great aptitude for statecraft, and won the approval of both your father and grandfather. Son of Shàngguān Bó and Lǐ Xiǎotáo. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Duānmù Shàn | Empress Duānmù of Great Yuán; Princess Jiéyì of Zhèng | b.5842 - d.5888 | A gentle woman and renowned beauty who was the real power behind her husband's throne, and raised Shàngguān Zhāo as though he were her own son. Mother of Shàngguān Xuán, and aunt to Gāoyáng Xiǎo, Gāoyáng Tíng, and Gāoyáng Mǐn. Executed by Shàngguān Lǒng in the aftermath of the Bǎohù Coup.

Shàngguān Xuán | Empress Shàngguān of Great Yuán; Imperial Princess Ānhuì | b.5874 | A strong-willed and bold childhood friend who was left as the only survivor of her family's slaughter. Forced to wed her uncle in the aftermath, it's said she's become morose and reclusive. Daughter of Shàngguān Bó and Duānmù Shàn, wife of Shàngguān Lǒng, and mother of Shàngguān Huáng.

Shàngguān Jié | Crown Prince Kè of Great Yuán | b.5871 - d.5889 | The arrogant and fearless son of Shàngguān Lǒng and Liángqiū Chún who sought your hand in marriage, regardless of the method. Murdered by Gāoyáng Xiǎo.

Liángqiū Chún | Imperial Consort Liángqiū; Elder Princess Pēngxīn of Míng | b.5850 | A quiet and unassuming woman, she was Shàngguān Lǒng's legal wife until he discarded her for Shàngguān Xuán in his pursuit for legitimacy. Mother of Shàngguān Jié.

Shàngguān Huáng | Crown Prince Yōu of Great Yuán | b.5890 | The heir apparent of Great Yuán, and the son of Shàngguān Lǒng and Shàngguān Xuán.

Gāoyáng Jùn | Imperial Consort Gāoyáng | b.5845 - d.5888 | A concubine of Shàngguān Bó. Daughter of Gāoyáng Lǐ, mother of Shàngguān É, half-sister of Gāoyáng Xiǎo and Gāoyáng Tíng, half-aunt to Qílián Shèng. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Shàngguān É | Imperial Princess Ānchēn | b.5873 - d.5888 | A shy and sweet childhood friend; daughter of Gāoyáng Jùn, niece of Gāoyáng Xiǎo and Gāoyáng Tíng, cousin of Qílián Shèng. Committed suicide in the aftermath of the Bǎohù Coup.

Qílián Yuè | Imperial Consort Qílián | b.5857 - d.5888 | A concubine of Shàngguān Bó. Daughter of Qílián Xūn, mother of Shàngguān Yàn, Shàngguān Yǎ, Shangguan Ling, half-sister of Qílián Shèng. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Shàngguān Yàn | Imperial Princess Ānkāng | b.5874 - d.5888 | A daughter of Shàngguān Bó, niece of Qílián Shèng. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Shàngguān Yǎ | Imperial Princess Ānpíng | b.5878 - d.5888 | A daughter of Shàngguān Bó, niece of Qílián Shèng. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Shangguan Ling | Imperial Princess Ānníng | b.5883 - d.5888 | A daughter of Shàngguān Bó, niece of Qílián Shèng. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

Lǐ Xiǎotáo | Imperial Consort Lǐ | b.5855 - d.5888 | A palace maid who gained Shàngguān Lǒng's favour. Mother of Shàngguān Zhāo. Killed in the Bǎohù Coup.

[fictionadventurer]

"If the structure of your world ever evaporates, I will still be here."

I think The Q might contain one of the greatest declarations of friendship/love ever.

[purgatorygrl]

Parallels between Jamie and Arthur

The relationship between what happened to Jamie with The Chelonia cult and Arthur's situation with the band seems to me to be quite similar.

Jamie came from a family that was quite dysfunctional, his mother had died and his father treated him badly and constantly despised him, so he needed to find a place where he was validated and felt accepted. To do this, he joined The Chelonia cult, where they told him what to think, what to say, what to do, and they took his money for the supposed "donations." Jamie knew that they were manipulating him and that everything about the cult was a lie, but he still stayed there because it was the only place where he felt accepted and where people treated him well.

Like Jamie, Arthur did not have a structured family and was alone since he was little until Dutch and Hosea adopted him and he began to be part of the band. Dutch made sure that Arthur had the same ideals as him and at all times he told him how to do things and what was the correct way to think and act. Arthur had his own way of seeing things and he didn't always agree with what Dutch said and did but he always gave in and in the end he ended up doing what Dutch wanted even though it wasn't what he wanted, partly because of Dutch's manipulation and the need for validation and because he felt like he owed him his life. He always saw Dutch deteriorating more and more but he never left the band, first because it wasn't that easy but mostly because it was the only family he had and the only people who had accepted him and that was the only life he knew.

"They're using you, they're telling you what you want to hear" In the end, Dutch used emotional manipulation to control people, especially Arthur, spontaneously giving him validation and calling him son so that in the end he would do the things Dutch wanted.

I love how Jamie asks him "and what do you know about that, Arthur?" I would say quite a bit, taking into account the dynamics of the Van der Linde gang and Arthur's relationship with Dutch.

[wonder-worker]

The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime.

— Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[mishalikessoundsandcolours]

I remember how once when I put on both of Syd's solo albums in a row when I was hanging out with my parents in the evening, my mom said something about how Syd's solo music is more accessible or easygoing than Pink Floyd's music. I just think it's interesting since people often say that Syd went insane so his lyrics and songs were getting more mad and ladidadida, but I think that if you listen to songs like Love You, Here I Go, Love Song, I Never Lied To You, Terrapin and so on, I wouldn't say that they sound like something that was written by someone who completely lost their marbles. Yes, the way he writes his lyrics and rhymes words isn't really ordinary, but I think it has more to do with the way he naturally talked and his kind of painterly approach to songwriting. And musically the songs on his solo albums don't sound extremely complicated either – they have that charming touch of whimsy and strangeness like everything he did, but they are still kind of easy to take in and relate to in my opinion – at least compared to things like Dogs, Atom Heart Mother Suite, Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast, Careful With That Axe, Eugene and all that (not that I don't like these songs, I love them a lot but they're just was more experimental or complicated to my ears). Anyways, just wanted to ramble a bit about that.

[someonesomewheredown]

Idk how well they'd be able to find fossils since a lot of them would be probably buried in the ocean but do you think Inkfish ever have long-lasting debates about mammal fossil reconstructions in the same way that the exact appearance of the Spinosaurus seems to change every few years

[odeggy]

I swear when someone calls me pretty or that they like something about me, like a really specific thing I love it so much, like you do??? What??? I hate myself??? My heart is melting and I'm falling in love???

Anyways I try to tell people that they're pretty or that I like specific things because I want people to be happy like that

I mean, it got me accused of being a lesbian so whatever

[the-real-aurora-borealis]

idk if im even comprehensible rn but I kinda wish help wanted 2 had more like, survival? minigames?

maybe its just me missing the old fnaf games but I think vr is a great place to have more of the older style minigames