#though it's mostly just me trying to sort out my thoughts/differentiate my interpretations in a (hopefully) succinct manner

[fukouiro]

i'm going to post my thoughts on the constructed language i used in my previous couple posts (link 1 and link 2).

however, i'm not going to explicitly name it since i think this post is overall going to be very critical and i don't think it makes much sense for it to show up in a search or tag search, especially since it's mostly just personal musings and not something i want other people to take especially seriously.

it's going to be annoying to not have a name to call the language, so i'm going to call it by its initials like T&P (which makes it sound like a business of some sort).

part 1: context on T&P

T&P is a very simple language, with a restrictive grammar and vocabulary of under 150 words. i think it does well on appearing simple. if it seemed too complicated, i probably wouldn't have bothered since i have other natural languages i already want to learn, and that's more important to me personally. i have a ton of fun learning Japanese, and i'd like to learn Vietnamese since i'm half Vietnamese and don't know any of it.

the core principle of T&P is that since the vocabulary is so limited, you must use multiple words to describe nearly all objects or actions, basically breaking down any concept into a descriptor of what you think its most important characteristics are.

for example, kili just means like fruit. if you want to be specific about the fruit, you have to try to describe it further. maybe a lemon is kili sike jelo. kili is the root word, and its modifiers are sike and jelo which mean "round" and "yellow", respectively. The modifiers stack, so the whole phrase reads ((kili sike) jelo), which I guess you could translate like "round fruit that is yellow".

anyways this brings me to

part 2: why i don't think this is very fun

i think this is a neat and challenging idea, but as it is maybe the only defining feature of the language, if you don't enjoy that then there's not much else for you. and as it turns out, i think i don't enjoy it that much, both in concept and in execution

for starters, the restrictive vocabulary means that there's a considerable amount of ambiguity baked into T&P from the get-go. even though you can break complex concepts down into several components, it can quickly become a mess to actually interpret the meaning of any phrase, let alone an entire sentence. for example, the word for "bad" can also means "evil" or "difficult".

another thing that compounds ambiguity is the way parts of speech work. any word can be a noun, adjective, verb, or adverb, which i think is actually cool. maybe a really basic inflection system would have been nice to differentiate root words from modifiers or something like that, though.

the part where this starts being a problem for me is that some words also play double duty as prepositions or pre-verbs (i guess you would call them). for example, tawa is a normal word that means "motion" or "go", but also a preposition that i think is identical to the english preposition "to". kepeken means "use" (noun and verb sense), and also means "using" or "by means of" as a preposition. kama (come) and awen (stay) can also be used in front of verbs to alter their meaning.

i don't think the pre-verbs are that big of a deal (though again, it might be nice if there was some marking of which is the root word and which is the modifier), but i think the words that are also used as prepositions are odd choices. especially since T&P already has a particle system, i think those prepositions should have just been made into particles, especially since they would probably become one syllable and generally improve understandability by being an unambiguous word.

i also think it's very tedious to constantly have to define concepts that seem pretty basic like "memory" or "a day", and very frustrating to find those definitions lacking because of the lack of vocabulary. to communicate with anyone else, it ends up being the case that set phrases become equivalent to certain words/concepts, so the vocabulary is functionally a lot larger.

part 3: why i don't think the grammar helps

to me, since T&P vocabulary is so small that it requires noun phrases all the time, i would like it if the grammar were flexible enough to make using those noun phrases easy. that's definitely not the case, though.

T&P has the pi particle to help you regroup modifiers in a word. for example, you can say waso pi kalama suli which is kinda like "bird of big noise" or "loud bird". a lot of words in toki pona don't have an antonym, even though pona and ike exist. so to say something like "weak person", you have to say "person who is not strong", negating only "weak". this leaves you with jan pi wawa ala.

one thing i find disappointing is that you can't use verb phrases with pi. for example, i could never use waso pi moku e jan, which would theoretically mean "bird that eats people", as a subject. it's not like i need to use this as a subject, since i can always chain together multiple sentences, but it is kind of annoying to have to talk like a baby. there are more practical examples of things that you would actually say using a verb phrase as a modifier, but oh well. if it was a feature that existed, i think it could help be more precise, counteracting the limited vocabulary. if this feature existed, it should probably use a different particle than pi to prevent ambiguity.

another limiting thing is that you can't use pi multiple times in a row. "memory" is often translated as sona pi tenpo pini which roughly means "knowledge of a time that has ended". however, if you ever want to describe something with that phrase (maybe to talk about something you remember), it's impossible since using pi like that wouldn't be allowed. again, it would probably require a different particle to prevent ambiguity, and it's not strictly necessary as you can use multiple sentences in a row, but if this language is gonna have me break things down all the time, i would like to have a lot of tools at my disposal to help break things down.

both of these would increase the complexity of the language grammatically, but i think it's worth it for the increased descriptive power. plus, the language itself is already somewhat complicated by the fact that modifier order matters since the vocabulary is so limited. i mean, i am just a silly person who really likes how in Japanese you can create like an entire sentence and use it as a modifier for one noun. i don't expect to be able to do something like that in T&P, but i wish the grammar was more flexible.

part 4: the writing system

i'm going to avoid naming the writing system directly for the same reason i'm not directly naming the language, so we're going to follow suit and call the writing system S&P.

(above: a selection of S&P characters that i think are pretty similar)

i don't think S&P (the writing system for T&P) is very well thought out. there are a lot of mirrored or rotated symbols, which i personally don't like the look of in a logographic writing system. i also think it makes it easier to confuse characters when they are identical besides mirroring or rotation. shoutouts to mi (me), sina (you), and ona (it/that/they) being the same character rotated, but not ni (this) for some reason. to me, there's also a style clash between symbols that are obviously pictographic and symbols that are more abstract.

(above: a selection of S&P characters that look like symbols or english letters)

a lot of the characters are also just… blah. a lot of grammatical words just look like punctuation marks which kind of makes sense but is just an uninspired choice to me. it kinda also just looks like you have a lot of closing parentheses and angle brackets without opening ones... there's also suli (big) and lili (small), which are the same character but written bigger or smaller, which is annoying (they couldn't even be flipped or something?). the characters for the words a, o, and n are literally just "á", "ó", and "ń" which is definitely a choice.

you're theoretically also supposed to be able to write modifiers above, below, or inside of the root character. aside from becoming unintuitive when there is more than one modifier word, a lot of symbols look exactly like other symbols but with extra detail, and other symbols simply aren't friendly to being combined, making this aspect of the writing system very weird.

another weird design decision is how transcriptions are handled. despite the fact that T&P only has three kinds of syllables (vowel only, consonant-vowel, or consonant-vowel with a final N sound), when transliterating non-T&P words using S&P, you're supposed to spell it out letter-by-letter (using symbols whose pronunciation starts with the desired letter), despite making the word conform to T&P's syllable structure in the first place! it seems that in the community, the more popular method of transliteration is to write a character followed by a middle dot to indicate that you are using the first syllable and not just the first letter.

just for the road, here are some characters that i like from S&P.

part 5: stuff that is more pet peeves than other things

i am biased as an english speaker, but i really don't like how much stuff just comes from english?

like obviously there's a lot of vocabulary that comes from english or a related etymology. personally i really don't like "lukin", but also, like...

okay, so to ask a yes/no question in T&P, one of the two ways you can do it is to just append anu seme ("or what?") to the end of a statement. which is just... okay, sure. that's a really weird and specific thing to take from english, isn't it? you have like a whole particle system and you can't just make up a question particle?

the other way to form a yes/no question is to do [word] ala [word] (kind of means like "[word] or not [word]?"). for example, sina sona ala sona e ona? ("do you know that?"). either way, i think it's pretty annoying that it takes at least three extra syllables to ask a yes/no question.

speaking of missing particles, i think the fact that kepeken takes three whole syllables is a mouthful for describing the concept of "by means of". of course, i just used three syllables there, but that was for maximum clarity in isolation. in english, you usually use "with" (like "i ate with a spoon") or "by" ("i traveled by bus") or "using". in japanese, it's the で particle. i really really think this should just be a one-syllable particle.

also the way "tawa" is also used as a preposition that is identical to the english preposiiton "to" is really... english-y. i guess it's different because its use is expanded somewhat compared to english since there are less words in general, but saying something and then appending tawa mi to mean "to me" not in the sense of "to the location i am at" is so... english-y! at least to me, i only know 2 languages so my feeling on that could be wrong.

at least you can also rephrase tawa mi and stuff like that using the context particle la, which can actually feel kind of like Japanese sometimes. mi la ni li pona would mean something like "to me, this is good". la is probably one of the things i like most about T&P.

i think the way that you can omit the li particle (used to mark the beginning of the predicate) if the subject is only mi (me) or sina (you) is... weird. i don't think it really causes a problem or anything, but it just feels weird? i think it should at least apply for ni (this) or ona (that, them, it) too. maybe even all one-word subjects?

pona lukin is the phrase used to mean "good-looking". i have never really understood why this is the case. i have an idea of why it could mean that, but i don't think the word order makes sense given the grammar of T&P and only makes sense because you can directly translate the individual words to english.

and the least substantive complaint i have is just that i don't think the words sound very nice? like kepeken is probably the worst example i can think off the top of my head, but i just think generally T&P words don't tend to have very nice-sounding syllables. part of which is because they don't allow any vowel sequences, so you can't use ai (which is a sound i really like) or ei (which is pretty okay). ao/au are also a fun sounds. not that you really need those sounds to make nice-sounding words, but i think they would be nice to have! also it would cut down on the syllable count of some words if they were used, which would be nice

part 6: *quack sound effect*

okay i'm out of complaints so i'm ending the post here. i just want to reiterate that i really don't think about T&P as harshly as this post might make it sound. i think it comes from a place of it being close to something i would find fun, but having a lot of disappointing aspects

[balsamina]

you ever start writing a way-too-long headcanon post and then completely forget where you were going with it.................yeah anyway here’s some rambling about Lusamine’s uh. Conditions(TM), both magical and non-magical, across verses

i’ll start off by saying that all Lusamines are prone to delusions of grandeur, paranoia, and generally irrational trains of thought. she is Fake As Hell, obsessed with appearances and control. convinced that most people are inherently (as) cruel and selfish (as she is), she tends to conceal things, act insincerely, and subconsciously look for weaknesses in others in order to stay in a position of control over them, even when she might not deliberately be out to manipulate or blackmail. she is generally avoidant and waffly when it comes to addressing her problems and falls back on some wildly unhealthy coping mechanisms in moments of distress/powerlessness. Mohn’s disappearance was the catalyst for some of her worst behaviors and deeds, but these things have pretty much always been true for her and remain constants across dimensions/timelines

now onto things specific to those dimensions/timelines...

SM verse

at this point in her “development” (if you want to call it that lmao), Lusamine is willingly undergoing treatments for her funky Nihilego neurotoxin/post-Nihilego fusion/magical Z-Power radiation bullshit. they are largely experimental (as Nihilego specimens aren’t exactly easy to come by or work with, an effective antivenom doesn’t yet exist, and Lusamine’s case was unique and pretty much unheard of anyway; much of her early attempted treatments involved Bill putting her through his Cell Separation System and seeing if anything happened) and definitely not 100% effective, but she has gotten to the point that she can cope with her symptoms much better than she did at the start of this blog. her aid Pokemon can sense when she might be about to have a fainting spell, her hallucinations and meltdowns are less frequent, some of her venom-repressed memories (most notably her memory that she used to actually hate Ultra Beasts and want them dead for “stealing” Mohn from her) have begun to return to her, etc...

she still experiences fatigue, occasional hallucinations, and lapses in judgment/confusion/intrusive thoughts, but she insists that she’s well enough now to travel and go about her business without supervision-- hence, her recent return to Alola. however, she has yet to resume her work with Aether

USUM verse

since her brush with Necrozma, Lusamine has started experiencing frequent nightmares and hypnagogic hallucinations. they are not (yet) so severe that she sees any need to seek treatment for them, and she continually misattributes them, being convinced, at first, that they had something to do with her encounter with the Ultra Beast Giovanni had under his control, and now dismissing them as being merely stress-induced. nothing to worry about! everyone has nightmares and thinks they hear things that aren’t really there sometimes. and she has had a pretty difficult past few months...it’s nothing she, Great Savior and Aether Goddess Lusamine Mendel, isn’t capable of handling on her own

(not that she would be likely to seek effective treatment even if she did think it worthwhile. because she’s Lusamine and reckless self-medicating is the way to go. deciding to start therapy to address her glaring psychological issues was apparently humiliating enough enough good decision-making for one lifetime in her mind)

Pokeani verse

Nihilego’s possession seems to work a bit differently in the anime, so uh.......she’s pretty much fine. definitely the most well-adjusted of the bunch. she had to go on bedrest for a while following the events that transpired in Ultra Space, but she was eventually able to resume her research and presidential duties without any noticeable problems

she recalls her Nihilego encounter in a more negative light than some of her other incarnations do (it was a frightening experience and she knows quite clearly how much danger she and the children were in), but...honestly, it was all probably far more traumatic and affecting for Lillie and Gladion than it was for her lmao. it feels to her more like a bad (but also kind of fucking awesome??????) dream than a memory, and she has difficulty recalling specific details. what do you mean i slapped Ash Ketchum in the face??!?! hm, doesn’t sound like something i would do...

the most notable Issues(TM) unique to her are probably her tunnel vision, neglectful tendencies, and caffeine addiction. she is wired 24/7 and Does Not Sleep. just as self-absorbed but less consciously manipulative than her other incarnations, she is more liable to hurt others through simple negligence and/or ignorance, and her brand of UB tunnel vision leads her to more often be the manipulated rather than the manipulator. she is, however, making genuine-- and mostly successful-- efforts to rectify these problems since Gladion first made her aware of them

[writeroftheprompts]

Oh hi! This ask might be a little particular because I do feel confident enough in my stories but I got a little problem and this is that English isn't my native language and I keep using the punctuation rules of my language. So I wanted to know if I could get a summary for it. (For example, I still have no clue as to what is the Oxford Comma :/) Thank you a lot! Love the blog

Ask and ye shall receive! I actually wrote a little cheat sheet of some punctuation uses a few years ago. Your question about the oxford comma will be answered below but I wanted to add more grammar information while I was at it. I’ve added a bit to it now to make more sense but I should say that this is a simplified cheat sheet of some grammar points that can be more complicated (but don’t have to be hard to understand) so I apologize if in summarizing I miss something. 

I should also say that since it was years ago I don’t have the exact sources I used to compile it but as far as I remember the main places I used were GrammarBook.com, Grammar Girl, and I used Grammarly today to add a few other things (though I personally would not recommend using the Grammarly plugin). 

Okay, first I want to talk about some basic points about grammar so the punctuation makes more sense.

A complete sentence includes a subject, verb, and object. The subject is the noun that is doing the thing in the sentence, the verb is the action, and the object is the thing being acted on. John(subject) eats(verb) pizza(object). Some sentences have implied subjects or objects. For example: John walks. That is technically a complete sentence even though it is short. You can think of it like John is the subject and object who is walking himself. A sentence also needs to express a complete thought.

A clause is a group of words that has a verb (predicate) and a subject. A complete (or independent) clause is like a full sentence in that it can stand on its own. An incomplete (or dependent) clause is like a piece of a sentence that needs to be joined to another clause to be part of a full sentence. Although John is lactose intolerant, he loves to eat pizza. In this example the italicized part is the dependent clause because it can’t stand alone as a sentence, the underlined part can.

So a combination of clauses can be a full sentence, a dependent clause is not a sentence, but an independent clause can be a full sentence.

Conjunction: and, but, or, nor…

Adjective: words that describe nouns

Adverb: words that describe verbs (commonly end in -ly)

So now let’s talk about punctuation points that affect sentence grammar, specifically commas, semicolons, and the difference between hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes (there is a difference). I’ll give a list of the uses of each and briefly how it’s used. Examples are in the parentheses.

Commas

lists

when using two adjectives (he is a strong, healthy man)

surrounding a name. (Will you, Ashley, do it for me)

interjections (I am, as you have probably noticed, very nervous)

connecting incomplete clauses but beware of comma splices. This is where you connect two complete clauses with a comma without a conjunction (I love to ride my motorcycle, it is so fast. A way to fix it would be either to use a period or: I love to ride my motorcycle because it is so fast.)

phrases that start sentences (As you can see, this puppy is adorable.)

separating two strong clauses with but, and, or, for, nor…

The Oxford comma: a comma in a list before “and” or “or” in a list (The bananas, apples, and pears had gone bad)

There’s controversy over whether people should use the oxford comma because in the example above it is not really necessary so it is mostly a style choice. But there are instances where it can make a big difference. Here’s an example from Grammarly: I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty. This could be interpreted to mean that your parents are Lady Gaga and Humpty (see point three). Using the Oxfrod comma avoids that possible misunderstanding by writing it: I love my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty.

separating pieces of a sentence for confusion (We bought sweaters and I picked out red and green, and blue was his first choice.)

quotations. Always put a comma either before a quote or after depending on where you put the tag (He said, “I’m so tired.” OR “I’m so tired,” he said.)

separating statements from a question (I can’t go, can I?)

Contrasting. (This is mine, not yours)

surround however, therefore, etc. when used as interrupters

Semicolons

Connecting two closely related independent clauses without a conjunction. (Call me tom; I’ll give my answer then). This is another way to fix comma splices. Both pieces of that sentence are independent clauses, but they make sense connected. A comma is too weak to do the job, but a semicolon can. So, when connecting two independent clauses either use a conjunction (and, but, or…) or a semicolon.

separate units in a list when comas have already been used. (The train stops at Montreal, Quebec; Toronto, Ontario; London, Ontario…)

With conjunctions when a comma has already been used sort of like the example above.

HYPHEN (-) 

(Note: the following differences are more nitty-gritty grammar things that you should know if you are really pursuing writing and publishing but in general I don’t think most people know this. I didn’t even know there was such a thing as en and em dashes until I looked this all up)

This is just the hyphen button on the keyboard

compound (eye-opener)

adjectives before noun (friendly-looking man)

adverbs not ly before noun (well-known actress)

numbers (thirty-two)

fractions (one-third)

prefixes on PROPER nouns (un-American)

prefixes ending in ‘a’ or ‘i’ if starts with same letter (ultra-ambitious) if they are different vowels don’t (proactive)

double e and o usually make one word except for (de-emphasize co-owner)

EN DASH (–) 

On a Mac, you can make this by pressing Option + -

differentiation (1997–2013, US–Canada border)

EM DASH (—)

On a Mac, you can make this by pressing Option + Shift + -

source of quote (Inspirational quote — Alex)

informal writing instead of semicolon (I pay the bills—she has all the fun)

interjections or asides (I just needed to say—I can’t believe I’m doing this—I’m in love with you.)

the above two points are sort of stylistic. As you might see you can use semicolons or em dashes so it depends on your writing preferences. From what I’ve seen, most novels and such use the em dashes instead of semicolons.

Change in thought or tone (I just wish—never mind.)

Incomplete thoughts in quotations (Emma was saying, “I couldn’t believe when I saw—” when an alien jumped out of the bush and attacked.)

These were the things that I wanted more clarification on when I wrote this and so I figured other probably would benefit from it too. Obviously there are a lot of other parts of grammar and punctuation so if you have any specific requests I can try to help you out!

[pelikinesis]

it could be mostly because of the 2020, but i don’t handle it particularly well when someone has to cancel D&D, which happens more often than i’d like. to clarify, i mean i feel bad in various ways, but i don’t lash out or anything.

i know that part of it is because it’s one of only a few outlets for socialization i have, and because the world is uncertain enough as it is. but i’m beginning to think there’s a bit more to it than that.

storytelling is kind of a big deal for me. understanding and creating narratives is probably the only skill i’ve been really focusing on for the past handful of years, and the more i think about it the more that makes sense. the narrative i had of myself was ripped to shreds awhile back, and ever since then i’ve been somewhere in between clinging to familiar narratives as if i could absorb their integrity of continuity, and trying to write one myself as if that accomplishment would give me the missing piece needed to work on my own life story.

the collaborative nature of D&D comes with its share of challenges, but whether as GM or player, there’s something relaxing in the fact that in session, i don’t have to create that narrative all by myself. i only need to contribute, by setting up the board or playing my part. and a narrative happens. a story happens, even if i’m not doing everything. and it happens the way it does precisely *because* i’m not doing everything.

maybe i’m upgrading my understanding of isolation and loneliness, what they are and how they affect people, particularly me. yet another chunk of the “(re)learning how to process emotions and recovering from numbness” thing. it’s amazing how many feelings are out there, which at some point early on i deemed i didn’t have the luxury of accepting. bewildering or overwhelming might be a more true adjective.

i kept something like a journal in the first year after julien died, and i’ve read through it here and there recently, in addition to finding the first and only letter i ever wrote my dad, shortly after he went to jail for trying to kill my mom. the letter reads like something a lawyer wrote. completely dispassionate and rational. the motivation was to demonstrate to his family that he was the one out of control, not us. a defense against dismissal and invalidation.

but even i’m surprised at how cold the whole thing is. i was so angry at what had happened i had to cut myself off from emotions or else i’d have done something completely crazy. and clearly i wasn’t fully aware i was doing it, and won’t be so long as i continue to downplay and minimize how hard it is to recover from that.

in regards to the journal, i was surprised to remember at some point i’d started breaking down the meaning of Japanese haiku, and Czech idioms, because i’m not particularly good at learning languages. at the time, i just thought i missed learning and wanted to occupy my mind with something, and didn’t bother thinking about why that in particular. it was as good a pastime as any, and that was the extent of my concern.

in hindsight, i was struggling with an absolute collapse of meaning. i understood human interaction and social realities through the lens of English, and neither of those things made sense to me anymore. so it makes a sort of sense i’d jump into the deep end of linguistic unfamiliarity. out there, it was impossible to take anything for granted. i had no choice, no risk of cutting corners on interpreting the meaning of every single word being said.

In English, i had the luxury of negligence, of carelessness. these were great sins of mine. that’s how i felt about it. but it was slow work. slow was reassuring, because i wouldn’t crash into anything, or anyone, or miss a turn i needed to make. 

but so long as i associate slowness with safety, and speed with danger, i will struggle with the motivation to believe and act in a way that allows me to keep up with the pace of modern life. i think some people resolve this conundrum by adopting a simple living kind of lifestyle, and i definitely see the appeal in that sense. 

but i’m pretty invested in the more normal speed of things, regardless of my current ability to keep pace with it. another way of looking at it, is that there’s a force opposing my natural desire to speed up. i’m not the most patient guy. when i’m snowboarding, i like going pretty fast. there are plenty of avenues in which i enjoy acceleration and velocity. i don’t lack the desire to accelerate my life. it’s just that trauma is a blockade. a series of spike strips. i’m so busy trying to figure out what’s wrong with my engine, i didn’t notice my tires were shredded. 

one of my textbooks mentioned that in folk/pop psychology, “trauma” is a term used in such a way that conflates (A) the event which results in the traumatic experience, with (B) the negative lasting effects on a person as a result of exposure to that event. And it seems i’m making that same conflation now.

Is trauma the blockade and the spike strips? or is trauma the shredded tires of the car? Technically, it’s the latter. the former is the event. a monster truck would crash through that event, and it’s jumbo-sized tires would probably be unaffected by spike strips. an event produces trauma, but trauma is not distributed evenly among individuals. 

bolts of lightning are never straight lines, or regular shapes. lighting is branched, and jagged, and crooked. electrons burrowing through the past of least resistance across the gaseous molecules of a furious sky.

i say “path of least resistance,” but “conductivity” is another way to describe this property, particularly in the context of metals. There is a vast connotational gulf between the two, and yet both are true.

i forgot i was talking about D&D originally. i doubt this was the original intent, but there’s something i’ve always found fascinating about listening to horror stories about awkward and bewildering and fucked up games of D&D, whether due to bizarre player or GM behavior. certain themes emerge though, when you read through enough of them. they all involve forms of acting out, of people reacting to emotional flashbacks and demonstrating the effects of poor differentiation.

and it makes sense that wacky countertransferential-type dynamics could emerge, since D&D creates an intersubjective container not dissimilar to the holding space of a therapeutic alliance, freeing people up from the constraints of normal social reality. but GMs aren’t therapists. i mean in a year or so, i might be both, but the point is that there’s no signing and briefing on informed consent forms, and no process of licensure for GMs, and of course group therapy differs from individual or couples therapy in a number of ways.

the point is, i’m not surprised that RPG horror stories exist, any more than i’m surprised that there will always be stories about terrible dates. expectations are rarely openly shared. everyone comes in with a set of assumptions and often do very little to share, compare and contrast. talking these things through is a skill, one which i don’t know the word for, and one which isn’t taught in school.

i consider this rambling, what i’m doing right now. i don’t do it all that often, but it’s good to have another recorded example. i have conversations with people who are more prone to it than me, and at times i found myself wondering about their internal processes and motivations, what needs are met in doing so.

part of it’s because more often than not, i only share or speak up if i have a particular point to make. it’s a lingering influence from my background in Communication. but there’s something a bit mechanical. in contrast, this whole bit of writing feels extremely organic, by my standards anyways. 

rambling came to mind because when it comes to the people who tend to ramble, i often find myself questioning to what extent they need someone to serve as a wall to bounce their thoughts and feelings off of. whether or not someone like that confuses this for true, two-way interaction.

naturally, that’s not actually an issue here, considering i’m just shouting into the void. but there is a sense of freedom and fluidity in engaging in this form of mental meandering. a soothing, relaxing quality even in the process of engaging with potentially distressing subject matter. i think i can see why they do it. of course, in a true interaction, there’s the potential that the distressing effects of the content is transmitted to the listener.

a repeated theme in some of my class readings this quarter is the idea that many of us are missing a permission, a sense of safety to feel certain ways, express things, to accept and share openly. and there’s a common tendency to try to replace this with something stringent, to impose a rigid structure or procedure as if this externalized integrity can function as substitution for something meant to freely flow. it’s a tendency that has us focusing on execution, and results, instead of on actual human connection.

and it’s probably one of the most prosaic and insidious forms of dehumanization out there in the world today. this part, too, feels similar to the rambling people i talk to sometimes. this arrival at some grandiose conclusion, this habitual seeking to state some truth about the world not directly attached to my own concerns--or presented as such.

at these points in those conversations where i am the listener, i feel the most like a sounding board. because those moments of conclusion tend to feature ideas that i find to be personally copasetic, but not particularly profound in relation to the amount of time and words it takes for the other person to arrive at: Misogyny sucks. Masculinity is toxic. A person i described as inconsiderate is inconsiderate. the movie industry sucks at casting Asians. it’s bad that people in my life made me feel bad for having feelings and opinions.

i get the feeling i’m meant to respond like some sort of cheerleader. give them the ‘you go girl’ treatment. and i suppose biggest reason i don’t feel like doing that, is because these are people who have many conflictual relationships. both have diagnoses for borderline personality disorder, but the main reservation from my point of view is that i find myself skeptical that they are working on their shortcomings, because of how often they act out or violate personal boundaries or demonstrate a lack of self-awareness or otherwise don’t seem to recognize or acknowledge the consequences of their actions. direct and indirect past experiences have left me feeling as though i can’t take it for granted that they’ve learned from past mistakes.

but then i wonder about my own shortcomings. how i rarely feel like i’m overcoming the worst parts of myself. my own capacity and willingness to change for the better is still in question. and here’s the part where i sympathize with those people the most: my natural instinct is to heap blame and guilt on myself with the implicit expectation that this will motivate change. 

but the cumulative toll of that tendency is not only counterproductive, but devastating. you can’t actually build yourself up much if you’re constantly demolishing your own foundations. but as far as internalized oppressive-abusive tendencies go, that one’s a real pain to excise once it gets under your skin.

if there’s one thing i can say on my own behalf here, aside from the fact that i’m blogging this instead of talking about it with someone, is that as i write this, i don’t feel frantic, or despondent, or otherwise overwhelmingly negative. part of it is because i’m pretty darned high, but i feel like if i’ve been emotionally activated at certain points in writing this, it hasn’t been to an overwhelming extreme. ii’ve been feeling mostly chill throughout this increasingly long bit of journaling. 

i know it’s questionable to frame things in terms of “at least i’m not talking about this with someone directly”, but i think part of that has to do with the fact that if i tried talking to someone about this, my capacity to really think through and feel though all this would be constrained by the constant consideration of keeping up some sort of appearance, or being overly concerned with the other person’s experience of the conversation. 

it’s one of those balance things. one of those instances of being so caught up in the imperative of being considerate to the other person, that the imperative gets in the way of actually being considerate to that person. 

if i tried to read all this back just now, i imagine i’d have two distinct conclusions: (1) wow, that’s a lot to think about, and (2) why is this taking me so long to process, an is this actually productive or am i just faffing about? And then a part of me wants to go on a tangent where i think about whether or not i’ve ever used the term “faffing about” out loud, and where i got it from. 

one thing i’ve done before in poetry, if not in blogging, is learned to write within a certain freedom of restriction, something learned by figuring out how to clear away all expectations concerning form and slant rhyme or slam judge scores, and freely do what i set out to do. it’s quite liberating, but an experience i’ve seldom experienced outside of poetry. to write and perform without undue concerns about winning the slam, or getting published, because of the reaction and feedback received from the audience in front of me.

and i suppose if there’s another avenue i have for that rare thing, it’s when i’m playing tabletop RPGs with friends. on the one hand, i’m absolutely invested in meeting a standard of excellence. it’s just that the standard of excellence exists on my terms, and is shaped in a manner not affected by intrusive imperatives from invalid sources, but rather by what i truly hope is a more authentic connection with my friends. 

anyways so that’s why playing D&D is fun, and why suddenly not getting to play D&D sucks.

[stephicness]

Pardon, im not very well at deciphering a person's personality and I have been craving to write Ravus, it's just so hard to really figure out how he is though?? I happen to really enjoy how you interpret him and was wondering if there's any tips you have for writing him? Mercí beaucoup. Also, have a lovely day/night~ ♡

lsersljk It’s super flattering that you’re asking me for tips on how to write for him. qUq~ He’s such a fun character, and definitely one that should be shared with the world. Because who doesn’t like a grumpy butthead with a tragic end? *throws sparkles*

But HM… Let me see how I can break him down for you. :D Alot of rambling and notes, but I’mma break it down into four categories: Body Language, Though Process, Outer Persona, and Speech Pattern. Read Below, for I rambled on quite a bit!

Body Language

I like talking about body language first off because of how much personality there is in just So Ravus, as we know, is kind of an asshole in game. He appears, basically tells the empire that he’ll take care of Lunafreya, bullies Noctis, and then splats and dies before turning into a goo boy.

On the outer surface, he comes off as a very stoic man for the most part. Never smiles, tries to show-off this harden facade that makes him seem hard to read and almost bland compared to some of the other characters. But think of it this way – it’s almost physically impossible to be that emotionally desolate. There’s gotta be something underneath the surface with him, right?

So with Ravus, alot of my writing comes from being able to describe the inner personality through subtle facial expressions or descriptions of his thought process. He might just be staring into space, but he’s got something going on in his mind regardless. Usually with his face, he’s usually got a frown on him or one of those resting bitch-faces, so he’ll almost always look pissed off about something. I also don’t imagine him to really using many arm gestures when he speaks or conveys his feelings. He’s kind of a stoic stick, to be honest. But I imagine that it’s mostly because that MT arm of his is harder to use, but also, if you think about it, a person’s body language conveys the most emotion. Thus, I picture Ravus really regulating how his mannerisms are. So when you do plan on applying some sort of emotion in his body language, pick it carefully! Because the smallest gesture of him holding someone’s hand or reaching out to them is more powerful than words when it comes to Ravus’s mannerisms.

Thought Processes

So like I mentioned before, alot of his personality shines through not particularly what he says or how he says it, but more rather what he thinks in amidst the situations he finds himself faced in. As we learn with the game, Ravus often finds himself torn between his ally, Niflheim, and those of Lucis, whom he still harbors alot of hostility for. He’s a man with firm beliefs, or so he thought, so alot of his struggle comes from trying to hide his true intentions from Niflheim, but also in trying to find a reason to aid Lunafreya in her endeavors in helping Noctis. His mind is full of alot of things, but often it’s clouded with a sense of hatred and spite towards Lucis as well as the Empire that destroyed his family and home.

His thought process is one that is often intricate and more detailed, I imagine, with alot of his conflict showing in a self vs self method. Despite him trying to be resolute in his actions and beliefs, there’s something that usually lingers in the back of his mind that ultimately grants him the chance to be sympathetic to some characters as we see in the game. With Lunafreya, he’s very adamant in her continuing her duty to Noctis as he tries to protect her, but he is there to help comfort her as she weeps. With Noctis even, he appears hostile in his approach to Noctis, but he truly did have the intention of wanting to help the prince and return his father’s glaive to him at some point.

With Ravus, it’s important to think about how he goes about his approach in thinking because, despite him wanting to believe in one thing, he’s got a realist personality as he thinks. In an ideal world, he could have forgiven Niflheim and Lucis for what they did and move on, but in a realistic one, he couldn’t. Niflheim had their power over Tenebrae and the Fleuret’s lifestyle, and so he chose the realistic option in siding with Niflheim. His logic always has reason and always is well though-out, but it often isn’t the choice he wants to make. So I suggest playing with this idea of duty versus desire when it comes to Ravus, because Ravus is more inclined to pick his duty over his indulgences.

Outer Persona

It might not seem like there’s not much of a difference between an outer persona and a person’s body language, but the way I differentiate it is that your Outer Persona is what you choose to show people in terms of your being rather than what your body shows in terms of portrayal. Kind of like personality over physique, and Ravus’s personality is alot more vibrant than it initially appears versus his physical portrayal.

With Ravus, the way I go about his outer persona is that I like to portray him as an almost cocky figure – the kind of guy that you’d look at at a first glance and go ‘Wow… He looks like a prick.’ Because let’s be real, he give off an aura alone that makes you know that he’s not someone you should be messing with. A sharp gaze that’s almost always a scowl, punctuated words that kind of almost sound demeaning, and a kind of stature that just makes you feel genuinely uncomfortable around him because of how imposing he appears to be. The way Ravus handles himself is kind of like Mr. Darcy, if you’re familiar with Pride & Prejudice. He’s a dick, but with a softer side. Eventually, at least.

Speaking of Ravus being a dick, he gives off that personality even more so when he confronts Noctis and the others. Despite his words being eloquent and poetic, he essentially tells Noctis that he’s a punk-ass kid who doesn’t know what he’s getting to. He calls Gladiolus useless and basically says ‘Fight me, bro’ to prove how weak Gladiolus is. Hell, he even told Noctis outright that if Ravus were to kill him or if Noctis were to die, then PSSH. Shit happens. Ravus legitimately is a butthead towards others in terms of his outer persona, mostly to portray this feeling of pride and authority over others. After all, he is the commander. He does not serve; he commands!

But nevertheless, he’s also got a softer side that he shows to a rare few, as we see with his conversation with Lunafreya. He’s got that super prideful aura around him still, and is kind of cold in his words as well. But as I mentioned before, his actions speak louder than words, and his outer aura can change to a more sympathetic one. He still gives off that air of command to him, outwardly telling Lunafreya (not consoling her, necessarily) that she needs to work past her fears and trust herself enough to help Noctis like she wants to do. He still remains stern and kind of hard on her, but he still shows enough compassion in his body language to show a difference in his outer persona.

And then he goes back to being a poetic martyr against Iedolas. He really doesn’t let his emotional guard down for anything, and it really shows in his portrayal. That is, until he meets ‘Noctis’ before his death. But you can see why he always has such a barrier up around him.

Speech Pattern

People have mentioned before how Ravus’s speech pattern is really hard to write, and it is for me too even! I’ll admit, I have a bit of a rough time, especially when I write for both Ravus and Ignis since I use similar speech patterns for both. But the major difference between the two, I feel, is how EXTREMELY formal Ravus’s dialogue is.

Think of him as if he’s some sort of Shakespearan thespian when he speaks. He’s the kind of guy who would go ‘Nay, I prithee thee’ if he really wanted to, but since he’s in modern times (kinda), he probably tones it down a bit more. But he’s still extremely eloquent with a high vocabulary that, honestly, I doubt he really knows at the same time. To me, I find Ravus to be one of those guys who uses big words mostly to confuse people rather than to retain an air of eloquence to him. I mean, instead of telling Verstael that his idea to kill Lunafreya for the ring was a bad idea, he said ‘A moot point.’ Who the hell uses that word? He basically just said ‘That’s a questionable choice.’ More people would understand that phrasing more than they would the word ‘moot.’

But if you’re looking to simplify without having to literally delve into an entire language dynamic of Shakespeare, there’s one character that I use alot as a reference when writing for Ravus’s dialogue.

Have you heard of the character Solas from Dragon Age? What I found cool about Solas’s dialogue is that the writers for Solas had deliberately wrote in iambic pentameter for most of his dialogue. This means that it’s very rhymic, almost in sync to a person’s heartbeat. (Da DUM, Da DUM, as Wikipedia described). It’s very paced, drawn out with extra phrases to match this kind of beat in his wording, and I think it’s super neat. And with the added vocabulary, it really reminds me of Ravus’s method of speaking, though not as soft as Solas’s tone.

Think of it kind of like this way too. A regular person would probably say ‘I need to go to my room.’ Ravus would probably fill his sentence out a bit more, and with a more refined vocabulary. ‘I shall retire to my room, for sleep awaits us all.’ Like writing a poem, since, of course, Ravus has quite some poetic dialogue. Kind of like a song or, again, the iambic pentameter. (’I SHALL retire TO my room, FOR sleep AWAITS us all.’ Not as fluctuated, but it gives a bit of an idea of sentence structure.)

Also, I don’t imagine Ravus really using contractions that often. He seems to speak with more of a ‘CANNOT’ than a ‘CAN’T,’ so unfortunately, none of that Y’ALL’D’VE for him.

I hope that covered alot of things that might be useful in writing Ravus! I rambled quite a bit, but nevertheless, I hope at least a little bit of it helps. c: