#these books are in like new condition btw

[klywrites]

retiring some books from my shelf and wish I could magically send them over to y'all

[silassinclair]

Hi!

Can I request Maddox with a darling who lives to read, maybe he catches her reading some old romance books in an abandoned house they shack up in or something like that

Btw I live your writing ♥️

As someone who loves to read I am obligated to write for this req 😤🫡 Thanks for the request tho!! Hope you like it :-)

Yandere Wild West Outlaw x Bookworm Reader

CW// Maddox is annoying, Reader being a little perv Masterlist Here!!

The new house Maddox found was lovely. It had decently okay furniture and a vast collection of old books on the shelf. It's small with only two bedrooms and one bathroom but it was charming. But what caught your interest was the big oak wood bookshelf. You couldn't even remember the last time you picked up a book. Being on the run with Maddox made time fly.

"Who would leave all these books behind? They're all in great condition." You mutter to yourself as you take a blue and purple book with gold trim off the shelf. Tracing your fingers down the spine of the hardcover novel you appreciate the craftsmanship. It was clearly expensive, something you could no longer afford. Your Dad bought you many books like these but now you were pretty much broke. You only had Maddox to rely on now.

Speaking of Maddox you had no clue where he was. Which you didn't really care, he always disturbed your peace. Cracking open the book you sit down on the loveseat and start reading. It was a romance book about a huntsman who fell in love with a duchess. The story was beautiful as it was exhilarating.

"Oh wow, you into that kinda stuff?"

You snap the book shut instantly, a mini cloud of dust poofs from the pages. Maddox chuckles huskily behind you, leaning down and resting his chin on the back of the loveseat.

"Oh don't be embarrassed princess, it was getting to the good part. What did it say again? Oh! Ahem-"

Maddox coughs into his hand and smirks. Deepening his voice he quotes the passage in a deep, British-like accent,

"He caresses the duchess' milky thighs, her womb felt of silk wrapped around his ma-"

"OH HUSH!" You whip around and smack the outlaw's head, his hat nearly flying off. But he only laughs at your flustered state.

"You're filthy." You groan and put the book back on the shelf where it was. But Maddox follows behind you and takes the book into his own hands and opens it up. Skimming through the pages he smirks.

"I'm filthy? Sweetheart you're the one readin' this junk." Maddox shuts the book and puts it back. Putting his hand up on the shelf he leans against it while looking down at your shorter self.

"Well it is a romance book." Rolling your eyes you choose a different book. This time you pick a title you're familiar with, Pride and Prejudice.

"Now leave me alone you brute. I'd like to relax for once." With that you walk away and go outside. Finding a nice tree you sit beneath it and read the book. Reading reminded you of home, the home that was ripped from you. In a way it was escapism which is unhealthy but a girl can dream right?

Hours pass and the sun begins to set, casting an orange glow across the cloudy sky. The words on the page become harder to read as the sun sinks lower and the moon rises. You didn't want it to end. You know you could read inside but that damn outlaw was inside. You just wanted to stay out here forever with the natural ambience of wind and birds.

Footsteps approach you and you already know who it is. Looking up you see him. Black denim jeans, a burgundy vest, twin revolvers around his waist, and a dark brown cowboy hat on his head. And of course that bandana covering the bottom half of his face. Anytime you asked him about his face he got ticked off so you avoided the subject. But you couldn't help but be curious.

"You're starin' sweetheart." His husky voice breaks the silence. There’s a hint of a Spanish accent mixed in with his Southern drawl. You can't help but think about what it would be like if you and him met under different circumstances. Would he save you from bandits? Offer to buy you a drink at the saloon?

Would you two have a storybook romance just like in the books you adore?

"Hey."

He's right in front of you now, crouched to your height. His gloved hand pets your hair and you're frozen. He has you in a trance that you make no effort to free yourself from. His dark amber eyes are crinkled in slight concern over your unusual silence.

"What..?" You say softly.

"It's gettin' dark. Unless you wanna be dinner for the coyotes then I suggest comin' back in. I'll cook up some beans so hurry your little bum up."

Well there goes the moment. You groan and get up off the grass, your back cracking as you stretch. Your eyes watch as Maddox walks back into the house. His hips sway as he walks, you never really payed attention to that before. His ass looks pretty round in those pants to-

"Ugh, what is wrong with me.." Groaning, you follow after him.

[subbyp]

I have this idea for an AU wherein Sanji’s physical Germa modifications kick in during his time starving on the rock, and when he’s like 14 Judge finds out and decides to take him back by force, because if the physical modifications took then surely the mental ones will too and if not there’s always psychological conditioning like what he did to Reiju, right? So Germa rocks up to the Baratie, burns it to the waterline, slaughters the crew (almost) to a man, and drags Sanji back. they don’t realize that Zeff survives, and they probably wouldn’t care if they did. (more fool them)

the mental modifications never kick in, but Sanji learns to act like they do, developing this false persona as a vicious shallow hedonist. he also leans hardcore on his growing resemblance to Sora to get Judge to indulge his whims (no, there’s nothing actually sexual about it, but it is deeply uncomfortable and it’s supposed to be). this is because he’s waiting for a very specific kind of opportunity…..

five years later, the Straw Hat Pirates are in Loguetown, getting ready to scale Reverse Mountain when Luffy fucks up the storefront of a shabby little seafood shack off the main square where Roger was once executed and is enlisted into chore boy duty. he gets to talking about dreams and piracy and sailing with the owner.

“do you have any dreams?” he says, failing to mop the floor.

“I used to have a few,” says the owner.

“not anymore?” says Luffy.

“none of your business,” says the owner.

“you should be my cook!” says Luffy.

“not a chance in hell,” says the owner.

then the shit goes down that leads to Luffy being put up on the block and almost executed. when the Straw Hats flee to the Merry they find the owner standing there waiting for them with a book under his arm.

he explains that he can’t be their cook—he’s too old and too broken, he’s had enough of the Grand Line, and besides staying in Loguetown is the best shot he has at achieving his dream (“I knew you had a dream!” yells Luffy. everyone ignores this), but he’s got a cookbook and nutrition guide he’s been working on and the Straw Hats can have the first draft so they don’t totally die of scurvy and shit if they swear to do him one favor—to, if they ever, out there on the sea, meet a nineteen-year-old kid called Sanji, tell him that Red-Leg Zeff is alive.

“yeah! of course!” says Luffy. “if you tell me what your dream is.”

“to see him walk free,” says Zeff.

—

Zeff’s cookbook keeps the Straw Hats properly nourished. but they barely make it to Sabaody in canon, and here they have one less combatant, so Kuma decides to split the team at Thriller Bark, and instead of sending Zoro to Kuraigana, he sends his unconscious just-bore-Luffy’s-pain ass right onto the Germa 66 flagship.

Judge wants to vivisect Zoro to figure out how a regular human non-DF-user could be so freakshow strong and then turn his head in for the bounty, but Sanji recognizes him as one of the Straw Hats (and thus, one of the liberators of Alabasta) and improvs on the spot that he wants him as a swordsmanship coach (“after all, sir, you want me to improve my swordsmanship”) and, he heavily implies, bed-warmer. thus Zoro wakes up in a Germa 66 infirmary, wounds bandaged, swords gone, and explosive collar on his neck, as the third-born Prince of Germa demands to be allowed to see his new toy alone. (“yes, I’ll be careful with him. I don’t want to break him when I’ve just got him!”)

zoro, having deduced what sanji is alluding to, is about ready to kill him with his bare hands on the spot, but as soon as they’re alone in the room together sanji starts immediately and profusely apologizing for being such a creep. he says he’s not into men (“especially not unwilling ones”) but it was the only way he could think of to get them even occasional privacy, and btw he is probably going to have to claim that he’s doing some unsavory stuff or else Judge might possibly have Zoro killed, but he’ll never lay a hand on Zoro without his consent besides what is strictly necessary to fake it around the Vinsmokes—

at this point Zoro starts to wonder what the hell he’s going on about. Sanji explains the whole thing and says that he’s planning on somehow getting Zoro back to the Straw Hats as soon as he can, and in the meantime he’ll make sure Zoro gets food and medical care and that nobody sells off his swords or anything, but he needs Zoro to do something for him in return:

“I’m going to feed you every bit of knowledge I have about Germa 66, and when you leave here, you need to give that information to someone who can destroy us until not even memories remain.”

[dduane]

Hey DD! My friend and I were looking at the graphic you have for the All the Wizardry bundle. We're both on the Curiosity science team, and we're curious (pun intended) where the model came from. Every time I see it it makes me smile :)

(chortle) I was impressed with it too when I first saw it, though the maker doesn't explicitly come out and say that's what they're modeling.

It turns up over here at Daz3D: "Mars Rover." And the maker seems to have done a pretty good job. It's fully rigged, and everything that ought to be able to move, does.

...When I was working on A Wizard of Mars it occurred to me that wizards with an interest in the Red Planet would be up there covertly interacting with the machinery on a regular basis—usually with puffer brushes and/or carefully-shielded cans of compressed air to help keep solar panels clean (or cleaner...) when observed weather conditions on Mars offered them sufficient cover to let them exploit the "plausible deniability" factor. (Because the last thing they'd want to do would be to mess up the science.)

So when it came time to do the cover for the New Millennium edition of AWoM, it seemed to me that the best thing to emphasize would be the concrete reality of what we'd put up there. Therefore a wheel of that Rover model appears on that cover.

The Rover also turns up occasionally, as you've seen above, in promotional stuff for the Ebooks Direct store; such as this 2017 ad for a summer reading sale.

(And yeah, if the orange-redness of everything is emphasized... oh well, it's a trope, and sometimes you just surrender gracefully and lean into those.) :)

BTW, the rather blown-out image of Mars displaying on the right side of the Wizard's manual in the AWoM cover above is a relic from older editions of the book: a render I did using laser altimetry and radar terrain data from the Mars Global Surveyor probe. There's a scene in the book where one character gets really annoyed at another and uses wizardry to drop a small ocean's worth of (ancient) water on the Oceanidum Mons region in an attempt to get rid of her. This attempts to show how the region looked in the immediate aftermath.

...I really need to re-render this now that Terragen has upgraded its planetary-level cloud management. :)

Anyway, I'm delighted you liked the Rover! Thanks for letting me know.

[runabout-river]

It has happened now, a JJK artist on Twitter is in critical condition after being shelled by the Israeli Army in Gaza while sheltering inside a school. Reportedly, she lost an eye.

The screenshot is from a friend who barely manages to keep in contact with Noury with a family member's phone. This of course is Israel's tactic to cut communication from Gaza. The world isn't supposed to see the genocide and at least the amount of reports and eye witness accounts have dropped since because most people simply can't communicate their suffering to the world anymore.

This is the picture Noury drew before Israel decided to finally cleanse the Gaza Strip like it always wanted thanks to an exaggerated death count of a provoked military response, undisclosed shelling by the IOF of their own citizens and lies of 40 beheaded babies.

The caption of this piece of art reads "Please don't take my sunshine away," a response to chapter 236 and Gojo Satoru's apparent death.

Think back to that time. A favorite character of yours dies in a manga and you either draw or look at drawings of him to deal with that. Then a war starts that had been brewing for 75 years because Jewish Extremists and Supremacist with the backing from the war hungry US want you dead.

You know what I thought this entire time? That it's statistically unlikely that the one JJK artist from Gaza that I follow will be a victim in this war. There are 2.2 million people in Gaza but there's only one Noury, so what's the chance that something is going to happen to her?

What an absurd thought that turned out to be. I've been writing and raging on Tumblr about the genocide again and again and I know the severity of it, I know the numbers. I've seen the pictures and videos of dead children with their faces, not their heads, turned over like the pages of a book.

But most of that, the sheer enormity and the scale of it, was still abstract in my mind. Now, outside of the dry and clinical fact of it, the human element made me realize in my heart and mind that this is a genocide.

1 person among 2.2 million getting harmed isn't a statistical probability of 0.00001 percent. It's 100% because everyone is the target. Every Palestinian in Gaza is targeted with deprivation, hunger, thirst, illnesses and bombs. That is ethnic cleansing. That is the threat of genocide.

And the US, the UK and the EU, they're all complicit in this genocide and because I'm from Germany I'm also explicitly saying that Olaf Scholz, Marco Buschmann and Nancy Faeser are also complicit in this new holocaust.

Hopefully Noury will recover and hopefully she and her family and everyone else in Gaza will be able to go back to their homes. Homes btw, that per international law, Israel is supposed to replace or compensate for after destroying them.

Of course you don't need to compensate for anything if no one is there anymore, either because they're dead or they moved to another country involuntaryily.

[mother-ofthe-universedraws]

So you said Bill in Simon’s body can remember being Bull for up to 6 months, what was that like for him? It’s like inevitable countdown to where he couldn’t really considered being himself anymore, but he’s also himself. I just wanna know his thought process during this, not to mention his shock at being Stanley Pines’ child.

He’s got a love-hate relationship with it. Babies are kinda useless when it comes to their ability to do anything, but he does take a lot of pleasure in the fact that all he has to do is scream and Stan will give him anything he wants.

Spoilers for the Book Of Bill, btw;

The idea is that Bill was reincarnated as Simon as a form of exposure therapy; he’s been in the theraprism for centuries by the time this happens, and while he’s been getting better, or at least getting to a point where he’s actively accepting help and trying to change, he still has a lot of unsolved emotional baggage that mostly revolves around his mommy and daddy issues. His parents weren’t great people; while his mum seems to be better than his dad, she still seems problematic. The general vibe that I’ve been picking up from them is that their love for him was very conditional; they wanted him to fit in with the rest of Euclydia to Bill’s own detriment. And even after spending centuries in the theraprism, the damage this did to Bill is still ever-present. Hence the idea of exposure therapy; they’re gonna expose him to unconditional love from a parent.

That’s where Stan comes in; the guy cares about others to the detriment of himself, and never expects someone to change their flavor of weird for anything. What one might consider freakish, he considers special, and all he ever really ask for from other people is for them to care about him too, even if it’s just a little bit. Not to mention the empathy aspect; he knows what it’s like to be unwanted by his own family. He’s kind of perfect for the role of the Good Dad, not to mention that Stan really needed someone in his life who loves him the way Simon does; someone to keep him from being as lonely as he was all his life; Stan needs Simon as much as Simon needs Stan.

Forgetting who he was and becoming an entirely new person is a painful process, but it wasn’t like Bill went into this process unknowingly. He was offered something that could help him, but warned that said help involved reincarnation. He knew the rules and how everything worked when he went into it, but decided that he might as well give this idea a shot, at least for the sake of curiosity than for no other reason. He didn’t know all the details going in, but he knew enough to know that whatever he was doing, it would involve his soul being wiped clean and an entire new life being grown from the ashes. But, by that time he’d been in the prism long enough that he was willing to accept help and try out different methods of getting better.

Simon and Bill are not the same person, but they’re cut from the same cloth. Their personalities and base instincts are extremely similar, as are their interest and quirks.

Being born to Stan is the major shocker, and Bill isn’t very happy about it. He still doesn’t like the guy, even if the intense and bitter hatred has calmed down over time. Bill does have fun “tormenting” Stan just a little as a newborn; he’d scream as often as he could out of spite, and tried his absolute best to keep Stan from getting a full nights sleep. And he does find it rather amusing that all he has to do is scream a bunch and Stan will basically be at his beck and call. He considers it a small amount of payback for the whole “killing him” thing.

He does warm up to the idea of Stan as his father over time. It’s kinda hard not to when the guy’s constantly holding you and giving you attention and love. By the time his days of being Bill are practically over, he’s pretty ok with the idea that this guy is gonna be his dad from now on. Hell, he even has an inkling of faith in the guy; he might consider Stan a failure at absolutely everything, but even he’s gotta admit that Stan’s really good at loving his family. That baby is Stan’s whole world, and even Bill can find some manner of comfort in that fact.

Sorry to go all essay on ya lol. This is something I’ve thought about a lot!

[yourlocalbadgerscales]

Lol, why is canon so important to some people?

Think about it dude. What is canon? Canon is a book series written by one person (who btw is a terf but let’s not talk about that now). One woman.

What is fanon? Fanon is a bunch of people all coming up with new thought and ideas that they love. Fanon is a group of people who saw their opportunity to get representation in fiction, whether it’s trans representation, aroace representation or bipolar disorder representation. It’s beautiful, because these people might have never seen their disorder, their gender identity, their sexuality, their skin condition or their body type be represented ever before. Because people like jkr exist, and they write stories excluding people they don’t respect, and that is horrible. In the marauders fandom, young kids with a love for writing get their chance. Young people who have a curiosity and imagination like no others get to put it into their own works. People get to discuss, people get to bond over their favourite headcannons and characters. I find it so beautiful. Or perhaps you’re just one person. A young child who has no happiness in this world, but finds comfort in their favourite ship or their favourite character, a character they headcannon with their own skin colour or sexuality. It brings them comfort, and that’s all that matters. Young children don’t deserve to feel guilty about this. Perhaps they already are abused at home and yelled at 24/7, when suddenly grownups on the interest start shaming them for their favourite ship, their favourite dynamic, their favourite fanfiction. Is that fair? No, it isn’t. Not in the slightest.

So sure, go ahead. Enjoy canon. Enhoy whatever makes you happy. Enjoy reading what’s already written. You don’t have to use your own imagination if you don’t want to. But please, don’t shame others for their favourite ships, characters or headcannons. If you can enjoy the fandom and find peace in it, why can’t everybody else?

The words of one woman, a transphobe btw, against the words of a teenager, lonely in this world and lonely with the struggles of being the seemingly only loving person in a world of transphobes etc. What is canon, really? Maybe my headcannons are canon to me?

Edit: And for the love of God, people don’t deserve to be called blood purists, zionists or anything like that for liking Regulus, Jegulus, the Slytherin skittles etc. That is a very close minded thing to say. Slytherin is not all about being a pureblood and above everyone else. Jkr did a mistake there, describing all the qualities of the house and then proceeding to use Slytherin as the house for all the evil, fucked up, ugly characters she didn’t like. And I am far from a Zionist. I am against discrimination of all sorts, I feel very strongly and have strong opinions about things like these, I’m against racism, queerphobism etc. Keep in mind, I am a minor and I already know more about this cruel world than most people my age that I’ve ever met. I’m a loving person. I have struggles of my own. Being called a Zionist, transphobe etc. is EXTREMLY triggering for me. To think that there are people out there, on this planet, thinking such things about me and believing I have beliefs like that, is extremely upsetting. Especially since they don’t know shit about me. I can ship whoever I want and like whatever character I like without being an arsehole.

[short-honey-badger]

Peppermint Tea 18

Alright. I hope you're ready for Mihawk! Here is the next part, like promised!

BTW anything that's labeled with Lavender will be more of a Shanks pov! Thanks!

Warnings! None really? Kissing? Mihawk is a jelly boy.

Masterlist

Mihawk arrives at your island three weeks after Shanks has departed. He notices something off the moment he comes within sight of the white sands, observational haki sending shivers down his spine. An awful feeling curdles his stomach, and Dracule curses how slowly his ship reaches the shores of his home.

The warlord flashes to the island, leaving behind the books that he had brought along for your overstuffed bookshelves. Mihawk picks up his pace, arriving at your door far quicker than usual, and barges inside. He stalks through the house, frowning when he does not find you anywhere inside. What he does find however, is an ornate ceramic sake bottle in the shape of a gourd, that Dracule knows he did not gift to you, and it was in far too good of condition for you to have found it on the shore. The bad feeling in his stomach grows to the point that he feels sick, something that he has never felt before.

Mihawk stalks out the backdoor, shoulders slumping in relief when he spies you sitting at the cliffside in the back.

You turn around at his approach, the devil cat glaring at him and hopping off his human’s lap to strut past Mihawk and back inside the house to hide away. Hank greets him like usual, and Mihawk gladly slides his hands into the shaggy grey hair to ground himself. There is tension in the air, and he knows that you are about to say something he isn’t going to like before you can even open your mouth.

“Welcome home, Dracule,” You greet him and go to stand, but your warlord motions you to stay there. He comes and sits beside you on the cliff, thigh pressed against yours, and you easily lean into him, pressing a kiss to his bare chest, “How was your trip?”

Dracule hates all this lead up, but he has missed you terribly and curls his arms around your waist, and buries his face in your hair.

“Uneventful. Too long,” he grumbles quietly, and you snicker and reach up to pet his hair. Mihawk shifts enough that he can turn and bring you in for a sweet kiss. He takes his time, lips a gentle press against your own until he pulls away to kiss your brow, lingering there as you relax against his chest. Mihawk wonders if you can heart how loudly his heart is beating.

“I had visitors while you were away,” You begin and Dracule feels like his heart is about to explode out of his chest, nerves eating at him in a way he's not experienced before, and he does not like it. Mihawk can't help the way his grip around you tightens, teeth clenched when he speaks next.

“I know. I could tell before I even made landfall.”

You nod, not minding the way he tightens his hold. You can tell that your admission has upset him because you know how careful the other man has been to keep you safe.

“It was one of the men you told me to be careful about. Red-Haired Shanks,” You finish, and your words are the final nail in the coffin. Mihawk sees nothing but red, furious that the bastard has found the one soft, good thing that Mihawk wanted to keep all to himself. Especially Shanks, the man was a womanizer through and through, and he hated the thought of you spending any time around him. You are speaking before Dracule can get a word in, and he forces himself to listen to your stuttered words.

“Shanks asked if he and his crew could stay on the island for a few days. I said yes, even though I was terrified, but you and Perona are always pushing me to try new things, so I thought that you wouldn't be that upset, but obviously that isn't true. And I'm really sorry, Mihawk,” you are rambling, but you can't help it. You've pulled away to look him in the face, wincing when you see the downturn of his lips and the fierce scowl between his eyes.

“They were all really nice, and he and his crew had so many interesting stories! I promise I didn't drink, I didn't feel comfortable with it because you weren't there, but they were funny and Shanks seemed so kind, so I told them that I wouldn't mind if they came back around.”

Mihawk goes through a lot of different emotions as he listens to you gush to him. It infuriates him that Shanks had wiggled his way so quickly into your good graces, but he felt pride in knowing that He, Dracule, was the first person you thought of when Shanks had shown up. However, he can't help but feel hurt at the knowledge that you invited the redhead back to your island. This was his home, and you knew that.

“I don't like the thought of that beach bum being here when I'm not around. I don't like that he stayed for a week and you didn't phone me at all. Shanks is nothing but a womanizing menace who plans to take you away from me,” Dracule snarls lowly and extracts himself from your grip. He needs to move before he does something he regrets, “I hate the thought of him even looking at you, _.”

Guilt crushes him when he catches sight of the hurt look on his own face when he turns to pace the cliff. He can't be angry at you, not when Dracule knows how kind and humble you are. There wasn't a deceptive bone in your body, and you were a terrible liar. He shouldn't be surprised that you allowed Shanks to stay so long.

Take you away? There was no one in this whole world that would be able to take you away from this gloomy, handsome man.

“I- I'm sorry, Mihawk. I just get so lonely when you and Perona don't come around, and it was so nice to have someone to talk to. It was exciting to have so many people around,” you say, throat thick with emotion and unshed tears. You hated this. Hated that Dracule was so upset that he couldn't even touch you right now.

“I tried to tell Shanks that I didn't think it would be a good idea to be friends with him, but he said that you wouldn't get too upset, and I believed him because he's known you so much longer than I have. I shouldn't have taken his word,” You are crying now, snow gathering around your sitting form and piling up around your legs.

“No you shouldn't have,” Mihawk snaps at you, and you flinch away from his anger. He deflates as soon as he sees the pile of snow that has gathered around you. He sighs and pinches the bridge of his nose and then goes to your side, sitting back beside his angel and pulling her close despite the snow.

“I am not angry with you, Dear one,” Dracule begins and takes both of your hands in his own, “But you make me a jealous man, and Shanks doesn't know how to quit.”

He kisses your knuckles, rubbing your hands together between his own to warm up your freezing flesh, “I do not trust him, but I do trust you, and I can't be upset with you for seeking out companionship from someone other than myself and Perona.”

You slump forward, relief coursing through you when Dracule takes your hands, happy that he is finally touching you, “You and Perona have spoiled me with attention. I shouldn't need any more than that.”

Mihawk swears silently to himself and gathers you close, “No, _,” He grasps you by the jaw, turning you up so that he can catch your eyes with his own gaze, “You deserve so much more than what we can give you. If you want the redhead to come back around, I'm not going to stop you from making friends with him. I just don't like it.”

He licks his lips when a thought comes to mind. Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea for Shanks to have found you. Mihawk would bet his hat that the redhead figured out your past the moment you mentioned your name, Shanks had always been knowledgeable about what goes on in the world after all. Having Shanks in your corner if something were to ever happen would be a boon, not that Dracule wants anything to occur, of course. He'd much rather the redhead just stay away from his Angel, but he knows that he isn’t that lucky.

“If it makes you feel any better, Shanks and his crew swore not to tell anyone about this place. Told me that treasures needed to stay hidden,” You inform him, and while it lessens his worries a little, Dracule doesn't trust the drunk not to slip up, and he really dislikes the thought that Shanks called you his treasure. That term belonged to him.

“Promise to call me next time he shows up. I don't care what time it is,”Mihawk orders softly and then leans in to capture your lips, “I want to know when that bastard comes around.”

You can help but giggle at his miffed tone. Shanks had mentioned that Mihawk could be possessive, but seeing it in action was something else. You hadn't expected such a calm, cool, and collected man to get so upset. You yelp when Dracule pinches your side and finds the man glaring at you for poking fun at him.

You grin, and the tension in the air melts away, “I promise to call you. I should have when he showed up, I didn't think about it.”

Dracule hums and kisses your brow, “Just do it next time, Dear one.”

He pulls you close again, tucking you against his chest, and you snuggle into the possessive hold he has on you. This definitely wasn't the outcome that you had foreseen, but you weren't about to complain. Not when Dracule has reluctantly given you his blessing to stay friends with Shanks. Though you weren't naive enough to know that you weren't out of hot water yet.

@writingmysanity @djbumblebee @goth-mami-writer @myradiaz @fluffybunnyu @bookandstar @foggyturtleknightangel @browneyedhufflepuff @anastasiyax

[meear]

The state of siblings in HP&the Deathly Hallows

Deathly Hallows is the book that shines a (new) light on every sibling in the story.

This is where we see Lily and Petunia's childhood, we learn about Aberforth and Albus' story, we read about Regulus' death, Percy's return (and even, to some extent, Harry and Dudley's goodbye, though of course they were never raised as siblings nor did they ever consider each other as such, but they did grow up under the same roof). This is the book where Ron finally confronts his insecurities, by destroying the locket who was throwing all of his family issues back into his face.

We finally meet Andromeda, the last Black sister, and we have Bellatrix mention her ("We—Narcissa and I—have never set eyes on our sister since she married the Mudblood"). In HP7, Molly even tells Harry that Fabian was her brother, which is something the reader never knew

I often see people drawing parallels between Sirius&Regulus and Lily&Petunia, both of these pairs being estranged siblings, but... They really don't have that much in common.

I've never seen anyone commenting on the Blacks' similarities to the Weasleys (by which I mean Percy) and the Dumbledores, when these three families have SO much more to offer. I think about them so often you do not understand. I don't even know where to begin. I've ended up putting a bunch of dialogue from the book, so it's a bit lengthy, but long story short:

Albus, Aberforth, Sirius, Regulus and Percy make me feel insane

Percy and Albus, two brillant, ambitious and arrogant young men, who felt trapped, who thought they were destined for more than the condition their family had condemned them to, who were desperate to leave their home and get their chance to shine despite their father's awful reputation, even by supporting corrupt ideals. Read what Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of HP7, and tell me it couldn't have come out straight of Percy's mouth:

"I resented it, Harry. I was gifted, I was brilliant. I wanted to escape. I wanted to shine. I wanted glory [...] So that, when my mother died, and I was left the responsibility of a damaged sister and a wayward brother, I returned to my village in anger and bitterness. Trapped and wasted, I thought!"

"[Percy] said he’s been having to struggle against Dad’s lousy reputation ever since he joined the Ministry and that Dad’s got no ambition and that’s why we’ve always been — you know — not had a lot of money"

Mind you, there's a bit of Sirius in it too, Sirius who also left. We learn about Percy and Sirius at around the same time (the beginning of Ootp, chapters 4 and 6) and I don't think it's a coincidence (edit: forgot to mention it but there's even a chapter named "Percy and Padfoot" in that book). Here's what Ron says:

"And if Mum and Dad were going to become traitors to the Ministry [Percy] was going to make sure everyone knew he didn’t belong to our family anymore. And he packed his bags the same night and left."

" 'You ran away from home?' 'When I was about sixteen,' said Sirius. 'I’d had enough.' "

"As far as I’m concerned, they’re not my family. She’s certainly not my family. [...] D’you think I’m proud of having relatives like her?”

Fred and George were angry at their older brother for putting his ambitions above his family and morals (I'm Percy's #1 fan and defender btw), and Aberforth was furious with Albus for the same reason. Again, this reads like something that Ron could've said about Percy, the pompous little snob (i love him):

Sirius and Percy are also not present on the family pictures:

"A photograph of the Weasley family stood beside the in-tray. Harry noticed that Percy appeared to have walked out of it."

" “I used to be there,” said Sirius, pointing at a small, round, charred hole in the tapestry, rather like a cigarette burn."

"Not Albus, he was always up in his bedroom when he was home, reading his books and counting his prizes, keeping up with his correspondence with ‘the most notable magical names of the day’ "

It's just that Percy and Albus betrayed their family by supporting wrong causes and Sirius betrayed his family by supporting the right one. but Regulus' support was an act of loyalty to his family. Aberforth and Kreacher tell Harry about Albus and Regulus' former goals:

"Didn’t I understand, my poor sister wouldn’t have to be hidden once they’d changed the world, and led the wizards out of hiding, and taught the Muggles their place?"

"For years [Master Regulus] talked of the Dark Lord, who was going to bring the wizards out of hiding to rule the Muggles and the Muggle-borns...."

I know I've been comparing Albus to Sirius, both of them being the oldest brother, but really Albus' ideological progression and death most resemble Regulus'. (both Black brothers share traits with both Dumbledores really). though of course, Harry didn't let Ron and Hermione make excuses for Dumbledore just because he was young:

" 'it’s an awful thought that Dumbledore’s ideas helped Grindelwald rise to power. But on the other hand, even Rita can’t pretend that they knew each other for more than a few months one summer when they were both really young, and— '

'I thought you’d say that,' said Harry."

" 'Dumbledore being pals with Grindelwald, but now it’s just something to laugh about for people who didn’t like Dumbledore, and a bit of a slap in the face for everyone who though he was such a good bloke. I don’t know that it’s such a big deal, though. He was really young when they— '

'Our age,' said Harry"

" 'He was a Death Eater,' said Harry. 'Sirius told me about him, he joined up when he was really young and then got cold feet and tried to leave' "

(i would like it on record that the exact expression "really young" is found thrice in HP7, two of them being about Albus, the last one about Regulus. i'm so incredibly normal about this)

"and when he was sixteen years old, Master Regulus joined the Dark Lord"

"[Dumbledore] changed, Harry, he changed! It’s as simple as that! Maybe he did believe those things when he was seventeen"

"I know what you’re going to say, she went on as Harry began to protest, that Regulus changed his mind . . ."

Albus and Regulus were two misguided brothers who both drank the drink of despair in the Inferi cave before dying, the only two wizards to have done so. Not only that, both of them had actually planned their own death; though it was a secret only known by the one who had assisted them (the chapters revealing the truth about Regulus and Albus are literally called "Kreacher's tale" and "the Prince's tale", like they're referencing each other, I'm in my incredibly delusional era right now). They started something (the same thing, in fact) they could not see through to the end, and "faced death in the hope" someone else would finish it:

"We want to finish the work Master Regulus started, we want to—er—ensure that he didn’t die in vain"

"he left me a job [...] Your brother knew how to finish You-Know-Who and he passed the knowledge on to me"

Both Sirius and Aberforth hated their brother's choices, but actually (as Harry told Aberforth) neither of them fully understood their brother's last moments. and because they didn't have that knowledge, neither of them ever gained a complete understanding of their brother:

"And Albus was free, wasn’t he? Free of the burden of his sister, free to become the greatest wizard of the— '

'He was never free,' said Harry."

"From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out."

"And he drank— all the potion— and Kreacher swapped the lockets"

"The night that your brother died, he drank a potion that drove him out of his mind."

"He thought he was watching Grindelwald hurting you and Ariana... It was torture to him, if you’d seen him then, you wouldn’t say he was free."

"Kreacher and Regulus’s family were all safest if they kept to the old pure-blood line. Regulus was trying to protect them all."

You know who ELSE "was never free" though??

I ask, but you already know.

" 'I don’t like being back here,” [Sirius] said, staring across the drawing room. 'I never thought I’d be stuck in this house again.' "

"I returned to my village in anger and bitterness. Trapped and wasted, I thought!"

Albus was never free. Sirius was never free either.

But wait! there's more!

"But Harry, his mother had just died, he was stuck alone in the house— '

'Alone? He wasn’t alone! He had his brother and sister for company, his Squib sister he was keeping locked up— ' "

Of course, knowing this about Albus Dumbledore, this scene at the end of OotP might hit a bit different:

“ 'I was trying to keep Sirius alive,' said Dumbledore quietly.

'People don’t like being locked up!' Harry said furiously, rounding on him. 'You did it to me all last summer —'

Dumbledore closed his eyes and buried his face in his long-fingered hands. "

Now do I think there's a link between Albus&Sirius being stuck in the house and Dumbledore keeping his sister locked up to protect her life and keeping Sirius locked up to protect his life... maybe it wasn't intentional, or maybe it was; either way, it's very juicy to think about, and Dumbledore's reaction after what Harry says? if there's even the slightest possibility he might have been thinking about Ariana...I'm EATING this up.

Let us not forget about Percy Weasley though. In the end, both Percy and Albus came to their senses, though not without losing a younger sibling, Fred and Ariana. Is it possible that Albus saw a bit of himself in Percy at the time? Maybe, maybe not, but he did try to comfort Molly about Percy:

" 'Dumbledore says people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right,' said Hermione. 'I heard him telling your mum, Ron.' "

"Reality returned in the form of my rough, unlettered, and infinitely more admirable brother. I did not want to hear the truths he shouted at me."

So yeah, they made wrong choices, but again, that doesn't mean they can't change:

" 'I was an idiot, I was a pompous prat, I was a— a— '

'Ministry-loving, family-disowning, power-hungry moron, said Fred. "

"Stupid idiot . . . he joined the Death Eaters."

" 'Don’t worry about Percy,' said Sirius abruptly. 'He’ll come round.' "

Remember the previous comparison between Albus and Percy, about both of them being the stuck-up pretentious brother?

"It was a porapous little sign, neatly lettered by hand - the sort of thing that Percy Weasley might have stuck on his bedroom door: Do Not Enter Without the Express Permission of Regulus Arcturus Black"

I think about this description a normal amount, the exact amount of thought warranted for such a short, inconsequential description, in fact

Another thing Deathly Hallows did was challenging our perception of Sirius and Albus (granted, mostly Albus) by developing a younger brother who, against all odds, might have been more admirable than them in certain aspects. when Regulus and Aberforth are first mentioned, one is a cowardly Death Eater and the other is implied to be a goat-fucker. alright. and yet, if you only read the last book, you end up having a more positive impression of Aberforth and Regulus than of their older brothers, to the point where Albus and Sirius even get compared to Voldemort. Interestingly, I feel like Albus makes an indirect reference to Kreacher here:

"That which Voldemort does not value, he takes no trouble to comprehend. Of house-elves and children’s tales, of love, loyalty, and innocence, Voldemort knows and understands nothing."

of course Regulus was not brought up in his last conversation with Harry, but there really isn't anyone else this comment could refer to, and it does echo "Kreacher's tale" nicely:

"Of course, Voldemort would have considered the ways of house-elves far beneath his notice . . . It would never have occurred to him that they might have magic that he didn’t."

"I’ve said all along that wizards would pay for how they treat house-elves. Well, Voldemort did . . . and so did Sirius."

"Sirius was horrible to Kreacher, Harry, and it’s no good looking like that, you know it’s true"

"He’s loyal to people who are kind to him, and Mrs. Black must have been, and Regulus certainly was"

"my rough, unlettered, and infinitely more admirable brother"

"Was I better, ultimately, than Voldemort?"

"Master Regulus always liked Kreacher."

"The barman face was impassive. After a few moments he said,

'I’m sorry to hear it, I liked that elf.' "

Sirius and Albus really wanted to distance themselves from the reminders of their home, and as a result, they weren't always decent people. Of course I don't believe for a second Sirius and Albus were actually as bad as Riddle. they both did fucked up things, so did Regulus who joined the Death Eaters and Aberforth who suggested using Slytherin students as hostages (tf), so I'm not saying one amongst these four is obviously better than the others, but. this reversal is still really interesting.

The fact that Aberforth was helping Harry through Sirius' mirror. The fact that one of Albus' names is Percival. Hell, let's reach even further, Albus meaning "white" and Sirius&Regulus' last name being "black".

Like I'm sorry, but to me this is cinema.

[familyabolisher]

have you ever written about the avulsion scene btw? bc you are very right and i always rotate in my head. so much going on there.

i think the first port of call for understanding the avulsion chapter is thinking of it as a rehearsal of sorts for the end of the book (or foreshadowing, if you prefer)—the three key agents are harrow, gideon, and cytherea, harrow ‘batterises’ gideon in a process that preempts that of full-on lyctorhood*, gideon ‘dies,’ cytherea mitigates this relationship between harrow & gideon that eventually becomes the conditions of subjugation that lead to that ‘death’ becoming possible, homoeroticism is there. harrow emerging naked with almost all of her hair singed off preempts cytherea emerging from the sickroom post-getting exploded; cytherea and harrow essentially swap places in a configuration which highlights gideon’s loyalty-slash-subjugation-slash-homoeroticism as shifting from being directed towards cytherea to being directed towards harrow. cytherea is this kind of … active narrative ingredient, ironically for the very thing she’s trying to prevent (and doing so badly. Flop queen), in that the narrative demands that gideon reach a point wherein she can kill herself for harrow, but cytherea is necessary to initiating the process by which she can get there and making clear the terms on which it has to happen. 

*obviously ‘full-on lyctorhood’ is a combination of eight different practices, but the text draws our attention to the idea that avulsion is the most direct and immediate commonality at least of those we’re exposed to. the fight between silas and ianthe towards the end & the idea that silas of all those present would be the one to reject lyctorhood outright (on theological grounds, no less) gains its kind of narrative compulsion in part on the basis that silas’ position is a contradiction in terms; that soul-siphoning, and by extension whatever they were doing during avulsion, is the most immediate articulation of the lyctorhood process (batterisation!), that the practice was developed by mercy and cristabel, the latter of whom was of course was the most fervent devotee of The Process out of all the early disciples—like, what galvanises the eighth house (discursively speaking) is a contradictory tension between zealotry and heterodoxy, devotion and heresy, so it stands to reason that the eighth house trial would take a form closest to what lyctorhood actually ‘is’ only for its practitioners to reject lyctorhood outright. anyway that’s enough eighth house sidetracking lol—

—the driving force throughout gtn is this process of gideon ‘learning’ cavalierhood; i’ve written before about this question of categories, taxonomies, socially enforced vs socially maligned relationships wherein to make sense of oneself within these essentially imperial categories and act accordingly is to act as grist for the imperial mill (and in turn open up a bunch of questions about what conditions are needed to sustain the particular imperialism that tm evokes, which tldr is rape and death and hegemonic discursive ownership over both), and gtn is laying the groundwork for the sorts of questions that the rest of the series goes on to interrogate (as in like, how do these conditions come about? how are they enforced and to what end? why is edgar allan poe there? what about the new zealand of it all?). so if we understand avulsion chapter as a key step in that ‘learning’ process (ie. one in which gideon voluntarily subjects herself to the siphoning, which both implicitly legitimises harrow’s desire for lyctorhood in ways that she hadn’t before been willing to do and posits her as an active participant), we can treat the chapter as able to reveal particular key points of discourse around what lyctorhood is supposed to ‘represent,’ what it ‘does’ in the text and what kind of conclusions it points to.

so obviously i’ve done the whole “locked tomb is lolita” thing to death by now, but—lyctorhood, and avulsion as a rehearsal of lyctorhood, anchors itself in what is very simply just a literalisation of nabokov’s discourse. where nabokov figures humbert as coveting an ‘immortality’ afforded to him through reverence within the literary canon and then figures dolores haze as a muse-type figure who can be raped, killed, reconfigured as equally timeless, but necessarily remain dead and extant only on the terms of humbert himself through his literary discourse. lyctorhood as immortality through the batterisation of another person is just … this, put into literal terms, and this is the entryway through which we can think about the series as heavily thematically concerned with sexual violence articulated through these vectors of death, necromancy, reanimation … anyway, avulsion is kind of an overture to these themes that are going to go on to shape the whole series.

& like, avulsion posits a relationship between batterisation/siphoning/lyctorhood (which is ofc to say Lolita Discourse), (homo)eroticism, and exploitation. when i wrote about the use of don quixote in gtn i spent a little time with how gideon & cytherea’s whole situationship was constituted on these essentially chivalric grounds and thus introducing some key questions re: the relationship that chivalry holds not only to a specifically catholic imperialism but also to lesbian gender formations and how lesbian masculinity in particular is often made sense of on the terms set by chivalry with all its problematising implications. i think this is especially prominent in avulsion, which you can read as something of a ‘wounded knight’/lady setup (obviously ironised by the fact that this is a situation very much engineered by cytherea herself); there’s an erotic-romantic undercurrent running through how cytherea talks to gideon (“good girl,” “darling,” the hair-stroking) which works in tandem with the kind of flirtation-chivalric seduction that’s characterised their relationship up until that point to suggest that being the object of that kind of seduction can be made equivalent to subjecting oneself to avulsion, and by extension that the erotic logics of that seduction bear a relationship to lyctorhood. (similar to how, like, protesilaus as puppeted corpse cavalier—loveday as dead and batterised cavalier—gideon as effectively cavalier to cytherea before she un-defects back to harrow draws the three of them into one another’s orbits to make a narrative claim about how to be beguiling corpse’d is to be lyctorhood batterised is to be whatever chivalric butch/femme thing gideon and cytherea were doing. metaphors innit.) this then opens up the v broad questions of sexual subjectivity, the body as instrumentalised (& as imperial cannon fodder), sexuality as a site wherein that instrumentalisation can take place, and sexual violence & its attendant metaphors that the series then tackles in far greater detail elsewhere. like, again, it’s an overture for the kind of thematics we then see developed further throughout the other two books.

so tldr avulsion is this kind of microcosm/overture for themes that characterise the rest of the series & we can pick it apart accordingly. it’s maybe a reach to call avulsion an out-and-out rape metaphor, but certainly it introduces something which is later posited as equivocal to rape for the purpose of tethering otherwise disparate practices of violence and exploitation back to the common denominator of conditions by which the internal configuration of the imperialist social body is sustained and made sense of.

[tedelunazz]

march 7th, dainsleif and al haitham

synopsis: some genshin guys with a reader with the personality of march 7th from honkai star rail

warnings: these days i was not active i saw so much honkai star rail content and i was so in love with the game, especially march 7th, kafka and the female mc.

although kafka reminds me a little bit of makima btw hope you enjoy this writing

AL HAITHAM

Al haitham didn't understand you most of the time, he thinks you are one of the most complicated people he has ever met, even though you get excited easily with anything you see and get happy when you learn something new, despite all that, he thinks you are complicated.

"He'll take a picture of everything that's new to me so I'll never forget it!" That's what you once said to one of the wise men who questioned you for always taking pictures, he thought you looked so sincere yet melancholic when you said those words.

"Not many know, actually, only a few sages of the Akademiya know, who were the ones who found me." Al haitham only listened to you speak as he continued to read his book." They told me I was wrapped in giant ice, it took them too long to get me out of there. They thought I was already dead when they finally managed to get me out of the ice, but surprisingly I was still alive."

You continued talking while looking at the starry sky through the window of Al Haitham's house.

"When I woke up, they asked me who I was and where I came from." For a few seconds your voice became weak but you quickly pulled yourself together. "I answered that I didn't know and that I didn't remember anything. At first I felt so sad and frustrated, as if my existence had been snatched from my own hands.

Al Haitham nodded, as he did this he put his book down on the table and discreetly took your camera that you had left on the table, he slowly approached you who were at the window.

"But after a few days, I decided that I would always carry a camera with me, hoping to find a photo to help me remember my past." You smiled to yourself. " And that day, that's when I was born again. "

You heard the sound of your camera activating and quickly turned to meet Al Haitham who was holding out a freshly taken photo along with your camera.

"Y/n, I hope you find the answers you seek. I know what you will. "

You were stunned and looked at the picture he had just taken, it was a picture of him.

Your eyes were beginning to fill with tears.

"Thank you, Al Haitham. I promise I will never forget you."

DAINSLEIF

You were like two lost children, one on one side looking to rescue the person you once wandered around Teyvat with and on the other side was the other person, who desperately wanted to find something that would help her remember her past.

You don't remember very well when you started wandering with Dainsleif around Teyvat, you vaguely have the memory of him touching your forehead with the palm of his hand and you hitting him to get him to move away from you. You don't have many memories of the first moments you spent with him, you only know that he allowed you to travel with him on the condition that you don't interfere with his plans and he won't interfere with yours.

They were simple, weren't they?

"Dain, do you think the person you follow would let me take a picture of him?"

Your question caught him off guard as they walked into Stormterror's Lair.

"What's with that question?" To your taste Dainsleif sounded a bit cold but you had grown accustomed to his tone of voice, cold and colorless.

"I suppose a picture of that person would make you happy. I may not know a lot of things about me or you but I'm sure that would make you very happy. " Dainsleif stopped walking and you bumped into his back." That hurt, Dain."

At times like this, Dainsleif didn't know what to say, mostly he never knew what to say to you when you asked these kinds of questions and just kept telling you "No". That's what he did the first time you asked him to let you take his picture, he said no and you haven't stopped insisting since.

Is that why you want to take a picture of Lumine? To give it to him? You're so weird, you get excited about simple and mundane things, you get excited every time you see a Crystal Lily in Liyue or when they come to Stormterror's Lair. Even when you went down to Sima and had your little adventure with a certain blonde-haired traveler and her floating friend, even there you were excited.

"I don't need a picture of her." Was all he merely said.

Dainsleif said this as he stopped turning his back to you and stared at you, "I don't need a picture of her or anything else in this world."

"I see." Your answer was just as short. "I guess you have a very good memory and don't forget anything."

In Dainsleif's perspective you looked a little sad when he said those words but he wasn't going to comfort you because he didn't intend to hurt you with what he said either.

"But you know, I do need a picture of what's important. "Dainsleif watched as you slowly picked up your camera that was strapped to your right side so you would never forget it!".

You were faster than him or maybe he didn't want to stop you, neither of you will ever know.

And so, you took your first your first picture with your traveling companion, with Dainsleif.

"I'll keep our first picture, okay?! You get to keep the others."

Dainsleif thought you looked brighter for a few moments but kept it to himself and kept walking, with you keeping pace with him.

[thefirstknife]

So I’m listening to a Destiny lore podcast (Destiny 2 - Myths and Ztories) and they’re talking about Cayde-6, his whole life up until his death. They read a lore card from Book: Ghost Stories called A Hero’s Requiem, which is the story of how Cayde was Risen.

I thought I had misheard the podcasters, but Cayde says:

“My brain works, but I don't remember a thing 'cept that I seem to be a functioning life form—I'm human, I'm a man.”

And I’m a bit confused by that. Was Cayde not Risen as an Exo? Or is this just Cayde being Cayde?

He was Risen as an Exo, yes! Cayde was turned into an Exo in the Golden Age, after being basically coerced into it by owing a debt to Clovis. He went through his resets and eventually died as Cayde-6 which is what he was rezed at. It appears he died during the Collapse and had fragmented memories of it happening.

The thing is that Exos are human. An Exo should feel and think of themselves as human; it was a huge part of how they were made. An Exo is a human mind uploaded into a robot body. At first, Clovis wanted to make Exos as far removed from humanity as possible so he didn't make them capable of "humanisms": original Exos didn't breathe or eat or do anything human. Clovis wanted them to be perfect, better than human.

But the problem was that they were still human minds in a robot body and those human minds could not handle having a body that doesn't breathe or eat. They started suffering severe consequences where they would become convinced that they have died. Clovis' logbook details the process of this in the section "-045- Note on D.E.R." Warning for some gruesome medical descriptions. The term "Cotard delusion" mentioned here is a real phenomenon btw (again, warning for medical stuff that might be upsetting).

DER is Dissociative Exomind Rejection. It's a condition that Exos go through where their mind rejects their body and they essentially go mad. It's most easily explained in this old Ghost scan from Mars from back in Warmind; it's explained in a way that isn't gruesome like in Clovis' log. Here it is from him with some extra details. Basically, this is the crux of the problem. The Exos have to feel human and have to be able to do human actions in order to survive.

It was obvious to them that the root of the problem lay in the deficient exobodies I had supplied. Deficient how, I demanded to know. They did not suffer human weakness. They never needed to eat, drink, breathe, sleep, micturate, or dream. Apparently, this was the problem. I had assumed that the need for these irritations would pass since there would be no shortage or accumulation of poisons to trigger them. But evolution's tangled ways cannot be so easily rationalized. I was wrong. Their brains concluded that all of their internal processes failed. No digestion, no breath, no heartbeat, no sense of interoceptive health... all signs of death.

Both of these also mention how resets help to stave off the DER. It's something that helps them acclimate to a new body (this is why they're reset upon upload and why they have no memories of who they were), but also it turned out to be convenient for Clovis so he didn't have to bother helping them in other ways as well as to be able to hide information from them. You can see how this is explained for the public in that scan. Meanwhile here's how Clovis talks about it:

I am much more interested in the surprising success of memory wipes. I became so tired of answering the questions asked by new exos—what had happened to the scanning clinic, how long had it been, would I let them see their families—that I began inducing retrograde amnesia before spin-up. Interestingly, this seems to have improved their resilience against exomind rejection! I theorize the lack of any episodic memories eases the transition into the new body. And the loss of emotional ties prevents grief and stress, which could interfere with healthy function.

Specifically, how he was tired of them asking questions and how the reset basically allows them to circumvent actually providing psychiatric help to people. If they suffer some trauma, you can just reset them to erase it. Cayde is actually a really good case study for all of these issues as he suffered with adjustment to the Exo body and struggled with memories. He had frequent flashbacks to random events from his previous resets and fragmented memories which he tried really hard to put into some logical sense and ended up pretty much inventing a possible life he had. When he talks about his "wife and son," these are fabrications constructed from his fragmented memories of unrelated events. He constructed them in order to feel more human.

The kid. The woman. I do not know them. They are not real. But I wish I did. And I wish they were. They're just the two best cards I could find to keep up my sleeve when the odds were stacked against me. I made them real in my mind and in my heart. I fell in love with the idea of them, and I crafted a truth that allowed me to feel.

So yeah! The way he reacts to being rezed and thinks of himself as "human" is because he is. He had to be, in order to be a successful Exo upload, otherwise he would've just torn himself apart eventually. Exos have to feel human and act human and think of themselves as human. They're still Exo and have clear differences, but at the end of the day, they're humans. It depends on the individual if they would align more with being human or being an Exo; in Cayde's case, he would definitely lean more to seeing himself as primarily human. He was not a fan of the whole Exo thing and had some insight into all the atrocities done by Clovis in order to create the Exos. He was also famously terrified of going through another reset.

[pseudowho]

Hi Haitch!

Firstly, I’d like to preface this with saying that I really appreciate the community atmosphere you’ve created on your page; the “shoot the shit” vibes you have with mutuals is genuinely so refreshing. It also has helped someone like me, who is generally too anxious to interact with people online, feel comfortable enough to dip my toes into asks a bit more (albeit anonymously for now lol).

Anyways, this all goes to say that I recently watched a video essay that made me think, “I want to share this with someone right now”. And, as someone who has written a lot of pieces (which btw: 15/10, *chef’s kiss) and explored the genre, I figured why not send it your way! https://youtu.be/cjG2OqCKDc4?si=ouISfbT97deriKmC (“the unknown pleasures of problematic romance”).

There’s no requirement to respond to this or anything btw! Just wanted to drop a quick message of appreciation and share some (hopefully interesting) food for thought. :)

I'm so pleased my blog is a safe space for you. I'm as sincere about it in life as I am on my blog. Please feel free to always interact with me, as you know I don't bite.

I'm watching this video as I type, and honestly, she's got a lot of great things to say! Thank you for sending it to me.

I have to say, the toxic trope exploration has always had two purposes in my mind; fantasising in a safe place about things that would be terrifying or dangerous in real life, and deconstructing our own fears by reading them in type.

I think, what a lot of women around me find frustrating, is that a lot of the traits that we see as desirable in a male partner (protectiveness, the wish to be a caregiver, the wish for them to take charge), have been heavily built into the wider "toxic male" expectation, and this wider "toxic male" tends to come with far less desirable traits.

Either that, or these desirable traits come with the expectation of exchange, like:

"You want protection? I own you, then."

"You want to be cared for? Take the lion's share of the mental and emotional household burden, then."

"You want me to take charge? All or nothing, then."

With the heavy heavy advancement of anti-women movements (incels, red pill, 'not all men', Andrew Tate, etc.) there has been a progressive and rapidly growing attitude that women are stupid and don't know what they want from a man, that they're users, that they 'predate' men to take advantage of them financially, and many other bundles of filth.

This movement has been popularised so badly, I think, that there has been a societal shift towards conditioning very young women to look for a 'dominant', and often older and wealthier, male partner. While this is displayed as being in our favour, it is, rather, a further attempt to disenfranchise women, and place them in relationships where they will be more vulnerable to being abused, under the guise of being 'cared for'.

There was also a spectacular interview with Gillian Anderson about her new book, which is full of confessions of womens' sexual fantasies. Anderson raised how acutely she was shamed for discussing her fantasies in a public forum. This is, of course, another way women are routinely attacked; mens' sexual fantasies have been given public forum (and women have been expected to cater to them) since time immemorial, and once more, in a very Victorian fashion, women are disgusting for voicing sexual desires.

In other words, in other words...women are routinely exploring sex and relationships through tropes, and many men hate it, because if there's one thing many men hate, it's women putting their heads together and recognising that they're not the problem.

I'm not here to 'not all men' by the way, so don't come at me with that crap. When women talk about this, we know exactly the type of men we're talking about, and if it's not relevant to the men in your life, move on.

Love,

-- Haitch xxx

[yallemagne]

genuinely curious, what do you think about Jack x Art as a ship

you know it's a good question when i unlock my chambers to fetch the laptop.

Love it. I'm obviously not as invested in it as Mina/Jonathan or even Arthur/Lucy, but I love it.

Before I get too deep into this, I'm begging you, if you like Jack/Art read @bluecatwriter's fics for it on ao3. Such amazing work. I need to catch up, but I haven't had reading brain.

Think we're gonna have to dip a little into headcanon here. And I spoil the book, newcomers beware.

I see these two as family friends. Obviously, what with the familiar nicknames Art and Jack. Both from wealth, though Arthur has titles and land and Jack has medical nepotism. I imagine Jack's upbringing to be very emotionally stunting, raised to embody rigid standards of masculinity. Meanwhile, Arthur's father decided to put all the work he could in making him feel emotionally supported, leading to a very emotionally driven young man. When they were little, I imagine Jack almost hating Arthur for how sensitive he is, saying he's spoiled, but it's really just bitterness over not getting a healthy upbringing.

And then they grow up, and Arthur grows a million feet taller, and Jack has a lot of complicated feelings about that. Cue "Don't be intimidated, Seward. Try to imagine him in his underwear.". Jack is a bit more mature at this point and recognizes Arthur's emotional maturity as a good thing. He still tends to view it as "Arthur is masculine enough to make up for some feminine habits", so it isn't perfect. Meanwhile, Arthur has always looked up to Jack, though he now has to crane his head down. The two of them embody something the other finds admirable, and their regard for one another sits in this void space between respect and attraction.

Now. Sexuality. There are two wolves in my head. One is more interesting. The wolves are: Jack is disaster bisexual and Jack is compulsory heterosexuality gay. The former is what is said about every single male character in the history of tumble fandom, and the latter feels more interesting from a writing perspective. For the development of this relationship, I lean toward the latter. THIS IS RELEVANT I PROMISE.

So... I think Arthur introduces Jack to Lucy in hopes they would get along because Arthur wanted Jack to one day be his best man. Very awkward when (this is just an interpretation of the events btw) Jack subconsciously recognizes Arthur's feelings for Lucy and projects his feelings for Arthur onto Lucy because Perfect Man likes Girl -> Like Girl to become Perfect Man.

(I do think Jack truly falls in love with Lucy as a person separate from Arthur over the course of the story, but not romantically. He just can't perceive it as anything other than romantic because of heteronormativity.)

Arthur loves and trusts Jack so much that, even knowing Jack proposed to her the same day he did, he goes to him and asks for help when Lucy is sick. This love and trust means he doesn't think to ask questions, though. I talked about that before.

When Arthur loses his father, his existing family, and Lucy, the woman he was going to build a new family with, he falls apart in Jack's arms. He trusted Jack with Lucy's health, and she died without Arthur ever being informed how dire of a condition she was in, and he still trusts Jack with his emotions. Jack isn't fully equipped to comfort Arthur, but his attempt is genuine and deeply appreciated by Arthur.

And then Bram wrote Arthur being comforted by the only other recurring female protagonist and decided that that marked the end of Arthur existing meaningfully in the story because Bram is a coward.

I've already written a post about Jack's feelings of entitlement regarding women and why it's more than just shipping that makes me resist the idea that Arthur and Jack married anyone other than each other. Their relationship is based on mutual respect and a willingness to be vulnerable with each other. The key to getting these two hitched is getting Jack more open to vulnerability, and then we are set.

Following the events of Dracula, Jack is anxious about embodying perfect masculinity, getting a wife, having a million kids... but this anxiety manifests with him bothering Arthur to do it. Arthur is in no rush to do any of these things. The woman he was preparing to build a family with is gone. Jack, who sees every single woman as a potential wife because of misogyny, is flabbergasted. Perhaps they have a falling out (just cut out my write-up of the falling out bc I'm like "that's a good idea!" even though I know I'll never write it). Jack has been pressing Arthur to move on because Arthur embodies the masculinity that Jack strives for, and if Arthur doesn't want a wife, what if Jack doesn't want a wife either?? What if they're both gay??? Arthur asks "...well, what if?"

Then they have a Vegas wedding.

[ugakei]

GoRA talking on X(twitter) space

https://x.com/GoRAproject/status/1735069556606169193?s=20

Hello everyone. Long time no update...

15th Dec. 19:00-19:30 [JST], GoRA 'Red'Miyazawa-san and 'Orange'Suzuki-san gave the latast infomation to the fans on X space.

There were no fixed news but Miyazawa-san mentioned what they want to do next year. He said that many plans were running but was not able to release those info then. He also said some of them would be make you surprize.(Apparently, it means 'beyond GoRA's image'... )

At first, he aporogized that kept the fans waiting of the next story of K SIDE:GOLD for 'Black'Yahichi-san was too busy. It is sure that it will be published, so Miyazawa-san asked "Sorry but please be patient."

And now SIDE:PURPLE has in preperation for publishing (perhaps in e-book), Suzuki-san is writing a new short story.

Regarding K, Miyazawa-san expressed as "like lighting the fire with wood", continuing discussion with KING RECORDS about what the things they can do in limited condition.

(BTW, AYAKA/redjuice also caused copyright inflingement on 'Daruma' mask image, but no mention about it.)

About AYAKA, they have a plan to publish "postcard style" novels set, it will be released One-day bookstore, parhaps ( haven't been fixed).

Then, they were talking about good relationship between GoRA members. They always talk and share what they watch or read the contents (movies, novels, gaming etc), what they feel for those. Too many contents are released in the world, they cannot check them if they work as a single creator as before. So Miyazawa-san wishes to keep GoRA co-creation work, in the future, he wants to disclose the experiences of their co-working process of the decade.

To keep the relationship between GoRA and the fans, they announced speaking time as that on X(twitter) would be held once a month.

(See you next time!)

[a-queer-seminarian]

Walter Brueggemann's Chosen? Reading the Bible amid the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2015)

I've been searching for biblical scholarship on disconnecting biblical Israel from the modern nation of Israel. It felt necessary to read Brueggemann's take, as he is one of the best-known Hebrew Bible scholars of our time. So for those interested, here are my thoughts! (Btw, I've posted this same piece on Medium if you prefer reading it there.)

My review in one sentence:

I did find this book helpful in articulating the distinctions between biblical Israel and modern Israel, as well as how both modern Israel and Christian Zionists have co-opted the biblical narrative to serve their own agendas;

however, I strongly disagree with Brueggemann's staunch support of modern Israel, which he maintains as he acknowledges that its military is vastly overpowered and that its treatment of Palestinians is unconscionable.

Summing up my summary:

If you want to know the key points Brueggemann makes without reading through the rest of this post, here they are:

How biblical Israel and modern Israel are not the same:

While biblical Israel was a theocracy relying on theological claims, modern Israel relies on military might and power politics (as well as support from Western powers like the United States).

Deuteronomy and the prophets emphasize that while God gave the Israelites the "promised land" unconditionally, their retaining of that land is conditional on whether they obey Torah. Modern Israel's violence against Palestine is absolutely not obedient to Torah, which emphasizes protection of "the other."

Other key points:

Trying to apply scripture to any modern issue is complex and risky, because scripture is an ancient collection of differing viewpoints; our own personal biases will color which biblical voices we uplift to further our own agendas.

Even so, taking all of scripture together, God's reach is clearly towards "the Other" — towards the most vulnerable of society — and our interpretation should reflect that. Ultimately, none of us should be able to morph biblical symbols or themes into an uncompromising ideology to justify our violence or bigotry.

Zionist Jews more or less hold that Judaism = Israel / the "promised" land. Other Jews emphasize that they are "people of the book" (Torah), which means that Judaism can be practiced anywhere!

Meanwhile, Christian Zionists co-opt Jewish Zionism to serve their own agenda to Catalyze The Eschaton lol (i.e. how to make the Second Coming of Christ happen; learn more about this at christianzionism.org). Christians also appropriate the biblical concept of Jews being God's chosen people for our own uses, which is supersessionist.

My full summary, key quotes, and longer review are below the readmore. Alternatively, read or share this piece as a Medium article.

I'm going to write about the stuff I actually found helpful in this book first, and then end with more critique of Brueggemann's personal politics. After all, I read this book for help with the biblical scholarship side of things, not for opinions about a "solution" to this issue, and the book did deliver on what I came to it for. Even so, awareness of the author's personal views is important in noticing where his scholarship leans towards that bias (as I believe Brueggemann would agree).

Book Summary:

Introduction: 

Brueggemann notes that "much has changed" since he wrote a previous book on this topic (The Land, 1977): since then, Israel has become an immense military power, has escalated its occupation of the West Bank, and continues to be "indifferent" to Palestinians' well-being.

Thus this new book aims to clarify that “...peace will come only with the legitimation of the political reality of both Israelis and Palestinians.”

Book thesis: a warning to and hope for Christians:

“It will not do for Christian readers of the Bible to reduce the Bible to an ideological prop for the state of Israel, as though support for Israel were a final outcome of biblical testimony.”

“It is my hope that the Christian community in the United States will cease to appeal to the Bible as a direct support for the state of Israel and will have the courage to deal with the political realities without being cowed by accusations of anti-Semitism.”

Chapter 1: Reading the Bible in the Midst of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Chapter’s aim: determine how to read the Bible responsibly in the face of this conflict — can the Bible guide us at all here? Trying to apply scripture to any contemporary issue is risky, because the Bible’s multiple voices allows us to draw the conclusions we want to.

Modern Israel claims that God gave ancient Israel the “promised” land unconditionally, so that it remains promised to Jews today.

They’re drawing from the ancestral narratives of Genesis 

But other biblical voices hold a different point of view: Deuteronomy and the prophets understand the land as given unconditionally but held conditionally — if the people break their end of the bargain, they can (and eventually do!) lose the land.

Among the biblical authors reckoning with Judah’s fall, there are exclusionists and inclusionists

Ezra the exclusionist: “Ezra referred to the community as ‘the holy seed’ (9:2). That phrase intends a biological identity…” Ezra had foreign wives expelled in order to guarantee “the purity of the land and of Israelite society”; modern Israel favors this reading, uses it to argue for “one people in one land”

Post-exilic inclusionists pave the way for expressions of Judaism that welcome the other:

Jonah is sent to show God’s mercy to Nineveh, a major oppressor of Israel; Ruth the Moabite is part of David's line; Isaiah 56:1-8 radically welcomes foreigners & eunuchs [my personal fave passage in all of scripture btw]

So any arguments using one of these two voices tend to fail because the other one is also present in the text

However, throughout scripture God’s reach tends to be towards the other. Thus any view that excludes the other should be met with skepticism – more likely to be about our own fears and hopes “that serve self-protection and end in destruction”

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved until the human rights of the other are recognized and guaranteed. These human rights are demanded by sociopolitical reality. They are, moreover, the bottom line of Judaism that has not been preempted by Zionist ideology.”

Desmond Tutu: “...the liberation of Palestine will liberate Israel, too.”

Chapter 2: God’s Chosen People: Claim and Problem

The Hebrew Bible makes no sense if we ignore its claim that Israel is God’s chosen people — a claim which carries on into Judaism today. The chapter explores whether this chosenness is revocable and if not, who carries it today. Ultimately, it concludes that any “chosen” group must “choose beyond their chosenness” to end the violence.

At least 3 traditions in scripture imply that Israel is God's chosen, all without explaining why God chooses Israel — it's beyond explaining, doesn't need to be explained

Ancestral tradition of Abraham — God promises “to be God to you and to your children after you” (Gen. 17:7). “The drama of the book of Genesis, in each generation, is whether God will grant an heir who can carry the promise and live as God’s covenant partner.”

Exodus tradition — here God declares that “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exod. 4:22). Firstborn son = role of “special privilege and entitlement but also one of responsibility.”

Sinai tradition — “Israel is given opportunity to be God’s ‘treasured possession out of all peoples’ (Exod. 19:5).”

“In these traditions, however, the specific language of “chosen” is not exactly used. It remained for Deuteronomy, which represents perhaps a later tradition, to utilize the most direct and unambiguous rhetoric for Israel’s status as God’s chosen people: 

“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6).

Deuteronomy gives a reason for this chosenness: it’s not because Israel is more numerous or righteous, but because God “set his heart” on Israel and “loved” Israel (7:7–8; 10:15). 

The exilic texts also reaffirm that Israel remains God’s chosen — beautiful in the face of all the seeming rejection of being humiliated and displaced.

But there are two big questions that problematize the chosenness that the biblical authors take for granted:

1. Is this chosenness conditional? Most biblical texts seem to assume it is unconditional and permanent; but places like Exodus 19:5 and parts of the prophets name a conditional if — that the people’s covenantal chosenness depends on their obedience to the Torah.

2. Has this theological claim morphed into an ideological claim that functions as self-justification? — particularly in the context of the modern state of Israel, but also…

Christians have appropriated the concept of being “God’s chosen”

The United States has too — we are the “city set on a hill” according to the first Puritan governor; we are God’s emancipated, coming from the “wilderness” of Europe to the “promised land” of the New World. And now we are Moses to the “benighted peoples” of the world, butting in with our military to “save” them.

Even liberation theology takes the concept of chosenness and applies it to the poor. “Jon Levenson, a noted Jewish interpreter, has protested against the notion of the poor as God’s chosen people, as though to usurp the claim from the Jews to that status.”

Another issue: what about the unchosen?

Genesis’ ancestral tradition is aware of other peoples, makes a place for them “as those who are blessed by the life of Israel”

Paul takes this “good news” that God’s promise reaches beyond Israel to argue for the “admission of Gentiles”

Prophets also explore this issue — through Amos 9:7 and 3:2 we find that Israel is “chosen for obedience but without monopoly of God’s saving deeds, especially when presumed upon.”

Ultimately, those who are “chosen” — be they Israel, USA, or church — must “choose beyond their chosenness” or expect present violence to yield to a future of endless violence.

Chapter 3: Holy Land?

Digging deeper into the biblical theme of land in the light of all that’s happening in Palestine. Even though it’s only a “small ingredient” in the current conflict, it is one that needs to be explored. Within Judaism, Zionists equate Judaism and the land, while other Jews focus on being "people of the book" (Torah), meaning that Judaism can be practiced anywhere!

Reiterates how “the land is given to Israel unconditionally, but it is held by Israel conditionally."

Adds that one thing that leads to disobedience, which then leads to land loss, is “the temptation to self-sufficiency” (drawing from Deut. 6:18)

Another interesting point is that the Torah, “the most authoritative textual tradition in the Hebrew Bible, ends before Israel enters the land (see Deut. 34:4). That is, Israel’s original or earliest tradition is not about having the land; it is about anticipating the land.”

Turns out that the prophets’ “if” is correct; the land is losable, as Israel and Judah do fall, with many Judeans deported

And yet — “The story does not end with land loss, displacement, and grief. Most stunningly, in this season of deeply felt abandonment there wells up a bold and vigorous reassertion of the land promise.”

The prophets argue that God will “reperform the land promise” 

One key question: how central and indispensable are the land and land promise for Judaism’s existence?

The Zionist movement argues Judaism = the land (disregarding the Deuteronomic if)

But in the 5th century BCE as Judaism was developing, different Jews had differing opinions; some exiles were not “smitten with” returning to the land.

“One compelling alternative to land theology is the recognition that Judaism consists most elementally in interpretation of and obedience to the Torah in its requirements of justice and holiness. Such intense adherence to the Torah can be done anywhere at all.”

[PS: if you're interested in an anti-Zionist Jewish view from the early 1900s, check out this article on the General Jewish Labour Bund]

Second key question: Is today’s Israel the biblical Israel?

No. While biblical Israel was a theocracy relying on theological claims, modern Israel relies on military might and power politics.

Furthermore, any appeal to theology for self-justification holds no weight among Israel’s “adversaries”; it’s just not compelling to anyone outside Zionism.

Chapter 4: Zionism and Israel

Opens with discussion of “Zion” as the poetic name for Jerusalem, has poetic force

The restoration of Zion is a primary theme in places like Second Isaiah

Delves into the history of Jewish Zionism, from the nineteenth century, through the Balfour Declaration, into 1948. [JVP has an article that delves into this history more thoroughly.]

By 1967, this ideology had “hardened” into something completely uncompromising, wanting Palestinians to just go away.

Differences between Jewish and Christian Zionism, and different branches under each umbrella

It seems like Brueggemann would call himself a Christian Zionist, of the kind that resists weird End Times versions of it, but wholeheartedly supports Israel even while insisting on critique of its violence…

His problem with Zionism isn’t that we shouldn’t have an ethnostate or whatever, but that Zion has been morphed from a biblical “symbol” into an uncompromising ideology, and thus Israel uses Zionism to claim itself beyond critique.

Brueggemann's closing statement: “...it is characteristically the ongoing work of responsible faith to make such a critique of any ideology that co-opts faith for a one-dimensional cause that is taken to be above criticism. Indeed, ancient prophetic assessments of the Jerusalem establishment were just such a critique against a belief system that had reduced faith to a self-serving ideology. Because every uncompromising ideology reduces faith to an idolatry, such critical work in faith continues to be important.”

___

Key Quotes

For even more excerpts from the book, visit this Google Doc.

On the complexity of biblical interpretation/application

“We may draw these conclusions about reading the Bible.

It is important in any case to recognize that the Bible refuses to speak in a single voice. It argues with itself, and we must avoid simplistic, reductionist readings of any ilk.

Any “straight-line” reading from ancient text to contemporary issues is sure to be suspect in its oversimplification. Such a reading disregards the huge impact of historical distance between the text and our current context.

Such a straight-line reading that ignores historical distance is most likely to be propelled by an ideology, that is, by a deeply held conviction that is immune to critical thought and is unswayed by argument, by reason, or by the facts on the ground. That is, it disregards complexities in the process of interpretation. A one-dimensional, uncritical appropriation of the ancient land promises for the state of Israel is exactly such a conviction that is immune to critical thought, reason, or facts on the ground. ...

...Tribalism, often in Christian practice expressed as sectarianism, tends to absolutize its claims to the exclusion of all else. The tribe or sect characteristically imagines that it has a final formulation, a final interpretation. Absolutist readings of the Bible lead to violent actions against one’s opponent…"

On the Land

“The dispute between Palestinians and Israelis is elementally about land and secondarily about security and human rights. ...while the state of Israel continues to 'negotiate' with the Palestinians, the dominant Zionist appeal to land promises continues to hold intransigently to the exclusionary claim that all the land belongs to Israel and the unacceptable other must be excluded, either by law or by coercive violence.” (ch. 1)

“As we ponder the grand sweep of this vision that runs from Abraham to King Cyrus of Persia, two questions arise: First, how central and indispensable are the land and the land promise for Judaism’s existence?  The contemporary Zionist movement would have us believe that Judaism is equated with the land and, consequently, with support for the state of Israel as the present embodiment of the land of promise. ...That approach, however, amounts to a particular interpretive trajectory that is not required by the tradition, and it disregards the Deuteronomic if: that the land is held conditionally. This interpretive position, like every interpretive position, requires a careful reading of carefully selected texts.  More crucial is the recognition that while the land tradition is of immense importance for the textual tradition, Judaism as it took form in the fifth century BCE was in fact not uniform and represented a variety of interpretive possibilities. Specifically, there were many Jews in exile who were not smitten with the land of Judah and who did not feel compelled by faith to return to the land. One compelling alternative to land theology is the recognition that Judaism consists most elementally in interpretation of and obedience to the Torah in its requirements of justice and holiness. Such intense adherence to the Torah can be done anywhere at all. Thus, land theology is, at least in some traditions of Judaism, relativized by the recognition that Judaism is a “religion of the book” (the Torah) and consists in the practice and interpretation of texts. Robert Alter has noted that Judaism is primarily a “culture of interpretation” that refuses absolutizing any conclusions from the text; we may assume that this includes absolutizing conclusions about the land…” (ch. 3)

Distinctions between Modern Israel & Biblical Israel

“...there is a huge difference between the ancient Israel of the biblical text and the contemporary state of Israel. While defenders of the state of Israel insist upon the identity of the two, many more-critical observers see that there is a defining difference between a covenant people and a state that relies on military power without reference to covenantal restraints.” (Q&A)

"...[T]he state of Israel can, like any nation-state, make its legitimate political claims and insist upon legitimate security. But appeal to the ancient faith traditions about land promise in order to justify its claims carries little conviction except for those who innocently and uncritically accept the authority of that ancient story. At most, appeal to the land tradition can “energize the base,” that is, evoke support from adherents to the ancient promise. Such an appeal, however, carries little if any force for any who are outsiders to that narrative. It is no claim to be used in negotiations because it is grounded in theological claims to which Israel’s adversaries will give no weight. ...The appeal to the biblical promise must simply be set alongside very old claims made by the Palestinians." (ch. 3)

On Chosenness — what about the "unchosen"?

“The matter of other peoples who are not chosen is a very important element in any talk about the chosen people. In the tradition of the ancestors in Genesis, there is clearly an awareness of the other peoples and an effort to make a place for them as those who are blessed by the life of Israel. ... One can, moreover, see at the edge of the Old Testament an inclusion of other peoples in the sphere of God’s attentiveness, an inclusion that intends to mitigate any exclusionary claim by Israel. In Amos 9:7, in which the prophet intends to critique sharply the pride of Israel, he makes a claim that God enacts exoduses for other peoples as well as for Israel:

Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel? says the Lord. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor  and the Arameans from Kir?

In the later lines of this poem, the prophet names ancient Israel’s two most immediate enemies, the Philistines and the Arameans, as recipients of God’s deliverance. The text does not go so far as to name them as chosen of God, but the claim may be implied. Of course, it is this same Amos who says in his polemic against Israel:

You only have I known [chosen] of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (3:2)

In this verse, the prophet acknowledges the singular chosenness of Israel, but it is that chosenness that evokes harsh divine judgment. The evident tension between Amos 9:7 and 3:2 indicates the edginess of the claim of chosenness, thus chosen for obedience but without monopoly of God’s saving deeds, especially when presumed upon. (ch. 2)

Making Room for the Other

“Welcome to the other appears to be a romantic dream in the world of real politics, and certainly current Israeli policy would find such openness to the Palestinians to be absurd. But if welcome to the other is considered romanticism, so ultimate exclusion of the other is a suicidal policy, because the other will not go away and cannot simply be wished away or forced away. As a result, the question of the other becomes the interpretive key to how to read the Bible. The other can be perceived, as in Zionist perspective, as a huge threat to the security of the state and the well-being of the holy seed. Conversely, the other can be perceived as a neighbor with whom to work at shalom.” (ch. 1)

Brueggemann's Suggestion for How Christians Should Respond to the so-called "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"

“In the end, Israelis and Palestinians are finally neighbors and have long been neighbors. When ideology coupled with unrivaled power is preferred to sharing the neighborhood, the chance for neighborliness is forfeited. Christians must pay attention to the possibility for neighborliness and must refuse protection and support for neighborhood bullies. Christians must support political efforts to strengthen the hand of the “middle body” of political opinion among Israelis and Palestinians to overcome the dominance of extremists on both sides who seem to want war and victory rather than peace and justice. Christians must call for new thinking in the U.S. government and do some new thinking that no longer assumes the old judgments about the vulnerability of Israel.  Prophetic faith is characteristically contemporary in its anticipation of the purpose of God; it insists on truth-telling that is attentive to bodily suffering, and it refuses ideological pretenses. It will tell the truth in the face of distortions that come with ideological passion and unrestrained power. When truthfulness about human suffering is honored, new possibilities of a just kind can and do emerge. Thus, being able to differentiate between old mantras and urgent truthfulness is a beginning point for faithful engagement in the real world.” (Q&A)

“God’s Holy Mountain” by Oscar (Asher) Frohlich

___

Returning to My Disagreements with Brueggemann’s Politics

In the introduction to Chosen? (2015), Brueggemann alludes to his previous book on this topic, The Land (1977). He admits that that book needs revising, as it didn’t contend with Palestinians’ suffering under Israeli occupation. Yet he is quick to emphasize right off the bat (and in pretty much every chapter) that he continues to support the state of Israel wholeheartedly, considering its continued existence necessary for the security of Jews worldwide:

“Mindful of the long history of Christian anti-Semitism and the deep fissure of the Shoah [e.g. Holocaust], we have surely been right to give thanks for the founding of the state of Israel and the securing of a Jewish homeland. But the issues have altered dramatically as the state of Israel has developed into a major military power that continues administrative-military control of the Palestinian territories.” (Acknowledgements)

For alternative perspectives, I recommend anti-Zionist Jewish perspectives like here, and here, and here, and here. In short, shipping all Jews off to a settler colony is not the solution to bigotry and violence against Jews; instead, every culture actually dealing with its antisemitism is. 

(Then there are the glaring facts that Israel is racist about which Jews it prioritizes; has a long history of mistreating Shoah survivors; and discriminates against Jews who show support for Palestine. If an ethnostate is truly the only way to keep all Jews safe, Irael is majorly failing that assignment.)

But back to the book: Brueggemann takes for granted that modern Israel is the correct response to the problem of worldwide antisemitism — in essence, to what he calls the “continuing vulnerability of Jews.” Still, he sees that Israel’s military has “long since moved past the vulnerability of the beginning of a fragile state” (Q&A).

So keep the state, but reduce its military; that’s Brueggemann’s solution in a nutshell — at least insofar as he states it in this book. To be fair, this text’s goal isn’t to formulate an airtight “solution” to the violence against Palestine. Still, what solution Brueggemann does suggest in Chosen? can be summed up in this bit from the Q&A at the end:

“There is, in my judgment, no realistic hope for any two-state solution. For all of the pretense and obfuscation of Israel, it never intends to allow a viable Palestinian state, so two-state negotiations simply buy more time for the development and expansion of the state of Israel. 

It may be that the solution will be found in a one-state solution that insists upon well-protected human rights for Palestinians while the Israeli occupation is fully recognized. A settlement will require an even-handed engagement by the Great Powers (including the United States) as well as acts of greater courage and political will by the immediate parties to the conflict.”

Again, I know it’s not his goal to come up with a perfect solution, but I have so many questions about this version of a one-state solution. For one thing, will Palestinians be made full citizens of Israel in order to ensure their rights are protected? Or will they permanently be second-class (non-)citizens / trapped in this limbo of not being allowed to exist as their own recognized state? What about their right to self-representation? Furthermore, must Israel remain an ethnostate in order to be this supposed safe-haven for all Jews?

My last comment on Brueggemann’s perspective is that, if he does understand that Israel is the oppressor of the Palestinians, he still — at least as of the writing of this book in 2015 — has work to do in un-internalizing a mindset that pretends the two sides are equally responsible for this “conflict.” Indeed, the use of the term “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” in the book’s very title highlights this issue — this term implies equal footing between the two sides, rather than making it clear that Israel is the aggressor and any violence that Palestinians respond with is resistance to that aggression, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and yes, even genocide. 

Along with the book’s title, other comments throughout the text imply equal footing between Israel and Palestine. Here are two examples, both from chapter 1:

“…Israeli Zionists want Palestinians to go away. Conversely many Arabs wish Israel would go away. But they will not.”

Palestinians’ and Israelis’ fear of the other, said to be grounded in the Bible, has been transposed into a military apparatus that is aimed at the elimination of the other…”

Both of these comments fail to emphasize the different sources of these wishes and fears for Israelis versus Palestinians. For Israel, the wish that Palestinians would “go away” is a desire to take the land from —  to literally seize and dwell in the homes — Palestinians. Meanwhile, any Palestinians who wish Israelis would just “go away” are wishing to be left alone in their own homes that they built, the agricultural lands they have long tended.

Same with their respective “fear of the other”: Israel spins propaganda to represent Palestinians as hateful and antisemitic, a threat to Israeli’s peace, taking incidents of resistance out of context to do so; Palestinians’ fear of Israelis is based in real and recurring incidents of ethnic cleansing, imprisonment and torture, and daily deprivations and insults.

To speak of the desires and fears of both sides as if they are equivalent, without carefully emphasizing the power dynamic between oppressor/oppressed, colonizer/colonized, is negligent and dangerous. It does nothing to “take seriously” “the brutalizing, uncompromising policy of Israel toward the Palestinian people and their political future” (Q&A) as Brueggemann purports as his aim.

This article, “The Myth of the Cycle of Violence,” discusses the problems with treating Israeli and Palestinian violence equally.

Wrapping up

I am very curious to know whether and how Brueggemann’s perspective between the time of this book’s publication in 2015 and today. How did he respond to the explosion of violence in 2021? To October 7, 2023, and Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza? Does he continue to believe that the state of Israel is necessary for Jewish well-being worldwide? I only did a cursory search; if anyone has any information on Brueggemann’s views today, please do share.

Or if you have thoughts of Brueggemann's take, share that too!

Finally, if anyone has suggestions for more texts I should read as I explore the relationship between scripture and modern Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine, let me know!

Stay tuned for more summaries and reviews. In the meantime, one source I recommend but won’t be reviewing is Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg’s recent newsletter post “Debunking the conquest narrative.”