#who have little knowledge of historical context

[your-resident-boat-person]

Okay, I've taken a closer look at the study, and I can state soundly that I do take issue with several of their methods and conclusions. For example, they criticize a lot of the subjects for not knowing that this story takes place in court, even though the story uses "Lincoln's Inn Hall". Most assumed it was an Inn. I take issue with this criticism for a reason I've already mentioned. To someone unfamiliar with the location in this time period, there's nothing wrong with assuming that a place called am Inn is an Inn. They preemptively waive off this issue with "they could have googled it", but I take issue with THAT because why would any of these people who think they know the meaning of this word randomly Google it. If it was a word they've never heard before, then fine. But if you know what an Inn is, and the place is called an Inn, why the hell would you google it? My second problem was absolutely on point, without knowledge of the specific location and time period the story is set in, it is difficult to understand. The study acknowledges this, but still somehow places the blame on the readers. I suspect this also confirms my first problem. If you gave this same passage to history majors (especially ones who focus their study on 19th century England), they would have had a much easier time with this. Also, unrelated, but they made most of the participants read aloud, and they would be periodically stopped to translate what they just read into plain (modern) english. I can say personally that if I was being made to read this passage aloud to someone under a time limit, and I was being interrogated about the meaning of every few sentences, I would have done SIGNIFICANTLY worse. I had the luxury of reading it to myself in the comfort of my own home.

However, despite all of these criticisms, I do think they're on to SOMETHING. Here are 2 examples from the passage I'd like to focus on.

"As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill."

And

"Chancellor ought to be sitting here—as here he is—with a foggy glory round his head, softly fenced in with crimson cloth and curtains, addressed by a large advocate with great whiskers, a little voice, and an interminable brief, and outwardly directing his contemplation to the lantern in the roof, where he can see nothing but fog."

Now, with example one, they gave an example of a participant who literally thought Dickens was describing that the bones of a Megalosaurus washed up on the street. They quickly realize that Dickens then goes on to say that the Megalosaurus then waddles up the hill, so it can't be just bones, and settles on there being a literal living breathing dinosaur in the street. Now, the things I mentioned earlier MAY be a factor in this interpretation. Maybe if this person read quietly to themselves like I did, they would have understood perfectly. However, I struggle to imagine even myself, someone with anxiety issues, having this same problem. They note that the Megalosaurus part tripped up a significant portion of the respondents, so this isn't an isolated incident. Furthermore, this example is divorced from the historical context issue, and most respondents at the very least understood implicitly that "Megalosaurus" is a dinosaur.

Now, for the second example, the respondent they highlight thought that there was a giant cat in the room. They saw the word "whiskers" and immediately jumped to cat. Now, when *I* see the sentence "addressed by a large advocate with great whiskers, a little voice..." I imagined a lawyer who was fat, had a bushy beard, and a quiet voice. I understood that advocate meant lawyer, and whiskers meant facial hair. Maybe this is another example of my historical knowledge making this section easier for me. I don't think I've ever heard someone irl refer to facial hair as whiskers, but I have seen it a lot in descriptions of ship captains from the late 19th and early 20th century. So maybe I'm uniquely equipped to understand this section. But maybe I'm also giving these respondents too much credit, and they should have realized that they're not meant to imagine a giant cat in the courtroom.

To me, these 2 examples should more or less be understandable and interperetable without the aforementioned historical context. Or at the very least, the imagery of literal dinosaurs and giant cats should have obviously been WAY off the mark even to these respondents. They describe a story more akin to that of Alice in Wonderland or the Wizard of Oz than what is actually being depicted here.

In my personal opinion, these two examples, SPECIFICALLY, of common problem areas for many respondents is indicative of a greater issue, even if the methods of the study are dubious, and their findings disingenuous. I think more studies of this problem are absolutely warranted, and probably necessary.

i appreciated this study: "They Can't Read Very Well: A Study of the Reading Comprehension Skills Of English Majors At Two Midwestern Universities"

essentially, a pair of professors set out to test their intuitive sense that students at the college level were struggling with complex text. they recruited 85 students, a mix of english majors and english education majors - so, theoretically, people focusing on literature, and people preparing to teach adolescents how to read literature - and had them read-while-summarizing the first seven paragraphs of dickens's bleak house (or as much as they made it through in the 20 minute session). they provided dictionaries and also said students could use their phones to look up whatever they wanted, including any unfamiliar words or references. they found that the majority of the students - 58%, or 49 out of the 85 students - functionally could not understand dickens at all, and only 5% - a mere 4 out of the 85 students - proved themselves proficient readers (leaving the remaining 38%, or 32 students, as what the study authors deemed "competent" students, most of whom could understand about half the literal meaning - pretty low bar for competence - although a few of whom, they note, did much better than the rest in this group if not quite well enough to be considered proficient).

what i really appreciated about this study was its qualitative descriptions of the challenges and reading behaviors of what the authors call "problematic readers" (that bottom 58%), which resonated strongly with my own experiences of students who struggle with reading. here's their blunt big picture overview of these 49 students:

The majority of these subjects could understand very little of Bleak House and did not have effective reading tactics. All had so much trouble comprehending concrete detail in consecutive clauses and phrases that they could not link the meaning of one sentence to the next. Although it was clear that these subjects did try to use various tactics while they read the passage, they were not able to use those tactics successfully. For example, 43 percent of the problematic readers tried to look up words they did not understand, but only five percent were able to look up the meaning of a word and place it back correctly into a sentence. The subjects frequently looked up a word they did not know, realized that they did not understand the sentence the word had come from, and skipped translating the sentence altogether.

the idea that they had so many trouble with every small piece of a text that they could not connect ideas on a sentence by sentence basis is very familiar to me from teaching and tutoring, as was the habit of thought seen in the example of the student who gloms on to the word "whiskers" in a sea of confusion and guesses incorrectly that a cat is present - struggling readers, in my experience, seem to use familiar nouns as stepping stones in a flood of overwhelm, hopping as best they can from one seemingly familiar image to the next. so was this observation, building off the example of a student who misses the fact that dickens is being figurative when he imagines a megalodon stalking the streets of london:

She first guesses that the dinosaur is just “bones” and then is stuck stating that the bones are “waddling, um, all up the hill” because she can see that Dickens has the dinosaur moving. Because she cannot logically tie the ideas together, she just leaves her interpretation as is and goes on to the next sentence. Like this subject, most of the problematic readers were not concerned if their literal translations of Bleak House were not coherent, so obvious logical errors never seemed to affect them. In fact, none of the readers in this category ever questioned their own interpretations of figures of speech, no matter how irrational the results. Worse, their inability to understand figurative language was constant, even though most of the subjects had spent at least two years in literature classes that discussed figures of speech. Some could correctly identify a figure of speech, and even explain its use in a sentence, but correct responses were inconsistent and haphazard. None of the problematic readers showed any evidence that they could read recursively or fix previous errors in comprehension. They would stick to their reading tactics even if they were unhappy with the results.

i have seen this repeatedly, too - actually i was particularly taken with how similar this is to the behavior of struggling readers at much younger ages - and would summarize the hypothesis i have forged over time as: struggling readers do not expect what they read to make sense. my hypothesis for why this is the case is that their reading deficits were not attended to or remediated adequately early enough, and so, in their formative years - the early to mid elementary grades - they spent a lot of time "reading" things that did not make sense to them - in fact they spent much more time doing this than they ever did reading things that did make sense to them - and so they did not internalize a meaningful subjective sense of what it feels like to actually read things.

like, i've said this before, but the year i taught third grade i had multiple students who told me they loved reading and then when i asked them about a book they were reading revealed that they had absolutely no idea what was going on - on a really basic literal level like "didn't know who said which lines of dialogue" and "couldn't identify which things or characters given pronouns referred to" - and were as best as i could tell sort of constructing their own story along the way using these little bits of things they thought they understood. that's what "reading" was, in their heads. and they were, in the curriculum/model that we used at the private school where i taught, receiving basically no support to clarify that that was not what reading was, nor any instruction that would actually help them with what they needed to do to improve (understand sentences) - and i realized over the course of that year that the master's program that had certified me in teaching elementary school had provided me with very little understanding of how to help these kids (with perhaps the sole exception of the class i took on communications disorders, not because these kids had communications disorders but because that was the only class where we ever talked, even briefly, about things like sentence structures that students may need instruction in and practice with to comprehend independently). when it comes to the literal, basic understanding of a text, the model of reading pedagogy i was taught has about 6 million little "tools" that all boil down to telling kids who functionally can't read to try harder to read. this is not productive, in my experience and opinion, for kids whose maximum effort persistently yields confusion. but things are so dysfunctional all the way up and down the ladder that you can be a senior in college majoring in english without anyone but a pair of professors with a strong work ethic noticing that you can't actually read.

couple other notes:

obviously it's a small study but i'm not sure i see a reason to believe these are particularly outlierish results (ACT scores - an imperfect metric but not a meritless one IMO for reading specifically, where the task mostly really is to read a set of texts written for the educated layperson and answer factual questions about them - were a little bit above the national average)

the study was published last year, but the research was conducted january to april 2015. so there's no pandemic influence, no AI issue - these are millennials who now would span roughly ages 28-32 (i guess it's possible one of the four first-year students was one of the very first members of gen z lol). if you're in your late 20s or early 30s, we are talking about people your age, and whatever the culprit is here, it was happening when you were in school.

i think some people might want to blame this on NCLB but i find this unconvincing for a variety of reasons. first of all, NCLB did not pass because everyone in 2001 agreed that education was super hunky-dory; in fact, the sold a story podcast outlines how an explicit goal of NCLB was to train teachers in systematic phonics instruction, because that was not the norm when NCLB was passed, and an unfortunate outcome was that phonics became politicized in ed world. second, anyone who understands anything about reading should need about ten minutes max to spend some time on standardized test prep and recognize that if your goal is truly to maximize scores... then the vast majority of your instructional time should be spent on improving actual reading skills because you actually can't meaningfully game these tests by "practicing main idea questions" (timothy shanahan addresses this briefly near the top of this post). so i find it very difficult to believe that any school that pivoted to multiple choice drill time in an attempt to boost reading scores was teaching reading effectively pre-NCLB, because no set of competent literacy professionals would think that would work even for the goal of raising test scores. third, NCLB mandated yearly testing in grades 3-8 but only one test year in high school; kansas set its reading and math test year in high school as tenth grade. so theoretically these kids all had two years of sweet sweet freedom from NCLB in which their teachers could have done whatever the fuck they wanted to teach these kids to actually read. the fact that they didn't suggests perhaps there were other problems afoot. fourth, and maybe most saliently for this particular study, the sample text was the first seven paragraphs of a novel - in other words, the exact kind of short incomplete text that NCLB allegedly demanded excessive time spent on. i'm not really sure what universe it makes sense in that students who can't read the first seven paragraphs of a novel would have become much better reader if everything else had been the same but they had been making completely wack associations based on nonsense guesses for all 300 pages instead. (if you read the study it's really clear that for problematic readers, things go off the rails immediately, in a way that a good program targeted at teaching mastery of text of 500 words or less would have done something about.)

all but 3 of the students reported A's and B's in their english classes and, again, 69% of them are juniors and seniors, so like... i mean idk kudos to these professors for being like "hold up can these kids actually read?" but clearly something is wack at the college level too [in 2015] if you can make your way through nearly an entire english major without being able to read the first seven paragraphs of a dickens novel. (once again i really do encourage you to look at the qualitative samples in the study, lest you think i am being uncharitable by summarizing understandable misunderstandings or areas of confusion that may resolve themselves with further exposure to the text as "can't read.") not to mention the fact that most students could not what they had learned in previous or current english classes and when asked to name british and american authors and/or works of the nineteenth century, roughly half the sample at each college could name at most one.

the authors of the study are struck by the fact that students who cannot parse the first 3 sentences of bleak house feel very confident about their ability to read the entire novel, and discover that this seeming disconnect is resolved by the fact that these students seem to conceptualize "reading" as "skimming and then reading sparknotes." i think it's really tempting to Kids These Days this phenomenon (although again these are people who in some cases have now been in the workforce for a decade) and categorize it as laziness or a lack of effort, but i think that there is, as i described above, a real and sincere confusion over what "reading" is in which this makes a certain logical sense because it's not like they have some store of actual reading experiences to compare it to. i also think it's pretty obvious looking at just how wildly severed from actual textual comprehension their readings are that these are not - or at least not entirely - students who could just work harder and master the entirety of bleak house all on their own. like i don't think you get from "charles dickens is describing a bunch of dinosaur bones actually walking the streets of london" to comfortably reading nineteenth century literature by just trying harder. i really just don't (and i say that acknowledging i personally have had students who like... were good readers if i was forcing them to work at it constantly... but i have also had students, including ones getting ready to enter college, who were clearly giving me everything they had and what they had was at the present moment insufficient). i think that speaks to a missing skillset that they don't know are missing, because they don't have any other experience of "reading" to compare it to.

just wanna highlight again that although they don't give the breakdown some of these students are not just english majors but english education majors a.k.a. the high school english teachers of tomorrow. some of them may be teaching high school english right now, in case anyone wishes to consider whether "maybe some high school english teachers can't read the first seven paragraphs of bleak house?" should be kept in mind when we discuss present-day educational ills.

[jostenskeeper]

is it just me that finds 'little women' unbearably preachy?

[nunlolita]

Kinda don't like how the term "Puritanical" started being used as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with me is a conservative" instead of you know. What that word actually means. And that people don't want to examine how cultural Christianity actually works and affects mainstream western culture, especially American culture, and instead opt to use it as a bludgeoning tool to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

[thecrenellations]

Is the lymond chronicles something I can get into if I know little of history and do not speak many romance languages?

Yes! I mean, it depends on your reading preferences and how you feel about being confused, but I certainly did!

That's my short answer! If you give them a try, I hope you find the series worth it, and I believe that what you like in a story will matter more than what you do or don't know going in.

My much longer answer, about my reading experience, is ....

In my case, I knew the names of monarchs and had a vague familiarity with the setting of the first book (Tudor/1540s Scotland and England). I speak a useful amount of French and a tiny bit of Spanish. Comparing experiences with friends, French was an especially helpful language to have, but I feel confident saying that I would have loved these books without it.

The thing about The Game of Kings (book 1) is that it’s just confusing. Dorothy Dunnett wastes no time in throwing political intrigue, multilingual references, and many characters at you. But even if you’re an expert in the history and in (modern and archaic) English, French, Latin, Spanish, Scots, and a little bit of Italian and German, you are faced with a protagonist who’s running back and forth across the border and interfering with that history … while guarding his goals and motives, explaining nothing about his past, and constantly quoting poetry from the personal library of a mind he doesn’t want to let anyone inside. Most of the people he meets don’t understand him, either.

For me, it was so rewarding when I finally started to learn what was happening and who he is, and after that the ride truly began…

I did not look up many references or translations and just kinda went with it. I was enjoying myself enough that I didn’t mind that so much was going over my head (especially if it was coming out of Lymond’s mouth), and within a few chapters I’d gotten invested in one of the characters (Christian!) and was entranced by a recurring joke/element. By the second section (let’s say … 175 pages in …), I was hooked, obsessed with a second character (Will!), interested in most of the rest, and having a great time.

There’s a character list in non-audio editions (the David Monteath audiobooks are very good, though), and companion books exist with translations/sources for many of the references. There are also various online recaps and chapter-by-chapter discussions. Looking things up yourself as you go along can reduce confusion, but be warned that many of the characters are versions of real people, so you may learn more than you want to know, such as when they die. 470-year-old spoilers, but still.

For me, the characters (complexity, parallels, relationships) and writing (playfulness, beauty, INCREDIBLE use of perspective and unreliable narration) are what make the books so good. They reward rereading, so, when/if you return, you’ll have another chance to go down some reference rabbit holes, and even if you don’t, you will understand much more.

The second book is generally agreed to be easier to understand! Also, there are elephants.

Perhaps more important than knowledge of history and languages is the reader's tolerance for …

angst. pain. agony. devastating reminders of prior angst and pain and agony

on the flipside, truly ridiculous antics, hijinks, and capers

many, many kinds of traumatic/potentially triggering content

bias/bigotry that shows up in characters’ perspectives and in general (not that newer media is free of this, but these books are from the 1960s and 70s, for context)

occasional elements that stretch the definition of historical fiction

revelations about your favorite authors’ influences (this was fun)

excessive reference to and description of Lymond’s beauty

half? a third? a large amount of the cast being in love with Lymond. This made for way more queer text than I knew to expect, which was great, but also … oh my god everyone is in love with him

the most bantering banter to ever banter, mostly, but certainly not entirely, courtesy of Lymond

Thanks for asking! If any of this raises more questions, ask again!

related: my lymond recs tag. There are mild and out-of-context spoilers, but these posts all sum up something about the series. :)

[notbecauseofvictories]

By the way, the inspiration for this was a Shen Yun performance, and I swear this Jia Tolentino article was hammering in the back of my head the whole time. It's a good article, but it also made me think about how America has been the refuge of weird splinter religions from the start---and most of whom in the 20st century have used media to conduct outreach. For example, there are ads in '30s pulp magazines for the Rosicrucians' LA branch; the Moody Bible Institute had phenomenal (decidedly creationist) school science videos in the 50s; in the 60s and 70s Pat Robertson (rest in fucking pieces) had CBN and The 700 Club which in turn led to the founding of American-Catholic tv station EWTN. I'm not even getting into the big names objectively associated with "cults", like Heaven's Gate, which leveraged the web as early as the 90s.

Yesterday, paging through the program brought me to an ad for the online "Shen Yun video platform" which feels like a rhyme on all that's come before. I mean, is there anything more quintessentially American than a sleek slick snake oil salesman, trading on all the religion and nationalism we've left lying around?

(Even just the concept of "snake oil" has its roots in American-Chinese-Native relations; one of the first cases the FDA took on was puncturing Clark Stanley's claims that beef fat and turpentine were "Native American" medicines.)

Afterwards, I went home and watched a bunch of youtube videos about Chinese dance: different variants of Mongolian biyelgee, the Yi's flower dance, even some beautiful Uyghur performances, because it came up on my feed and I was fascinated. Ironically, that led me down a rabbit hole---through First Nations/Native American rap; Latvian choral singing; Yemeni Jewish pop music; Chilean fusion. Maybe a song or two from The Hu to round it out.

All this to say....smart is for children, curiosity is forever, and also people should keep making music, writing articles, and doing things, because for good or ill---nothing on this earth is more fascinating to be around.

I do think that my seemingly limitless interest in the world is my best quality. I have other good qualities probably! But I am always, always deeply fascinated by the world and everything in it, such that even a lackluster dance performance can inspire thoughts about making a living as an artist and the creation/performance of identity and communicating meaning as a political act, plus a couple hours spent watching videos of folk dances to try and clear my palate.

[esote-rika]

to talk is to bare | Spencer Reid

Pairing: Spencer Reid x fem!Reader Category: hurt/comfort, fluff Summary: three times you've never felt enough for Spencer Reid—and the three times he rectified it immediately Content: insecure reader, written with early s2 Spencer in mind (glasses!Spencer rawr), reader wears makeup, implied bad relationships in the past, Spencer is just a sweetheart Word count: 2.4k A/N: entry for #lovers1kevent (congrats @mggslover muah) - the lyric prompt for this is “And I knew how you took your coffee and your favorite songs by heart, I read all of your (self help) books so you'd think that I was smart” from enough for you by Olivia Rodrigo. This was supposed to just be pure angst but apparently, I can't write this man as anything other than the perfect boyfriend.

“Well, actually, Dostoevsky intended the book to be a critique on certain schools of thoughts and ideologies, namely...”

You stare at your boyfriend, nodding along as he explains the intricacies and historical context of Notes from the Underground to you. His smile is kind and excited when he stops, looking at you expectantly.

“Right.” the smile on your face isn't forced, per se, but neither does it reach your eyes. How many times has it happened this month? It isn’t that you’re keeping count of all the times he’s corrected you—truthfully, you can’t, because you’ve lost count. And that’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? The fact that you can’t even keep track of his corrections anymore, because he does it all the time. 

You remind yourself he's not doing this to deliberately make you feel stupid, your memory immediately calling forth all the times you've seen him correct other people — his teammates, the cashier at your favorite bookstore, a random person in the park. It's never pointed, nor is the act laced with anything but genuine, loving desire to share his knowledge. He's not like the men you've had to deal with in the past, the ones who jump at every opportunity to show off that they know more than you, that they're correct and you're wrong.

But this is Spencer. Sweet, wholly inexperienced, awkward. Half the time, he doesn't know how he comes across, and you've been dating him long enough to understand that. 

No, his corrections aren’t the crux of the issue. In fact, it isn’t even him. It’s you, and all the treacherous thoughts running through your mind. This damn book you’d read because you saw a dog eared copy in his satchel one day, pushing through pages upon pages of dense material just to catch up and relate with him, only to still come up short and have yourself be corrected.

The sting is still there, lingering and acrid in the back of your tongue. You cannot pinpoint it yet, this But it's Spencer Reid, so you grit your teeth and remind yourself not to take it personally. The words slip out easily. You could almost believe they aren’t lies. “Thank you for letting me know.”

The beam on his face is a reminder that not everyone is as patient, that he's come to expect looks that range from baffled to downright annoyed. Nobody else allows him free reign to talk like this, long winded rambles that get nipped at the bud with a sharp Reid. He smiles, beams at you, and this time the smile on your lips finally reaches your eyes.

“So what did I get wrong?”

“You weren’t wrong,” he’s pulling you in as he answers, lips finding the underside of your jaw and the bitterness dissipates, sweetens into something that makes your toes curl, “Just a little inaccurate.”

Your body melts into him easily. “You don't have to sugarcoat with me.”

“I'm not, it's literature. You can interpret it however you want, I just thought knowing the rest of the context would help you with your opinion.” he's kissing down your neck, breaths ghosting over your skin as he continues to talk, and you sink into his arms, forgetting why you were even feeling annoyed in the first place.

You’re not sure if you like the color you’ve put to make your cheeks flush. It's always been a point of contention in the past, your exes saying you don't put enough effort in, so this time with Spencer, you try. Even though you're not the best at it, even though you feel a little foolish because it seems a little too bright despite all of your hurried attempts to blend it a little more. But it’s too late to change now. You don’t want to go through the whole deal of reapplying your makeup because that would mean running late, so you ignore it and head to the cafe quickly. 

Spencer isn't there yet. You order your drinks, his black and into which you dump an exorbitant amount of sugar. Memorization is his thing, but you've come to learn a thing or two about him in the time you two are dating.

He's a few minutes late, and when he arrives, Spencer’s eyes lock on you. Or, more specifically, your cheeks.

“That bad?” you tease, standing from your seat and leaning over for a kiss. 

“You don’t have the coloring for that shade of red.”

Your brow knits as you pull away. Attempting to hide the flood of insecurity that swept through your chest, you let out a chuckle. Soft, shaky, and accompanied with a confused, “What?”

“It makes your cheeks look a little inflamed.”

“Oh.” 

Regret fills your chest, settling in your lungs until it’s difficult to breathe. You should have trusted your instincts and scrubbed the makeup off. Shouldn’t have tried something new on the one day the two of you can go out. He’s probably embarrassed by you. How silly, being a full grown woman wearing makeup bordering on clownish. 

He must have caught the hurt in your voice, the way your body deflates because he’s quick to remedy. “Hey, what’s that look for?”

It should embarrass you, the speed at which he picks up on your emotions. But he’s a profiler after all, he’s specifically trained for this, but sometimes you wish he doesn’t use it against you. Gentle hands cup your face. Cold hands, perpetually so until you’ve started keeping them between yours. They tilt your head up. 

“Talk to me.” 

“It’s stupid.”

“Nothing you say is ever stupid.”

You smile, “No, I think we both know that’s a lie.”

He relents. He knows you’re right; there are moments where you don’t make sense. “Not stupid, just…” his eyes roam your face while he searches for the word to use as compromise, as though he’ll find it tucked somewhere in your pretty features, “Lapses in discernment.”

You roll your eyes at his fancy vernacular, the attempt to soothe his mistake. “I think I prefer the layman’s term.” 

Spencer laughs sheepishly, then presses his lips to your forehead, “I’m never using that to describe you.” he murmurs against your skin, and then, “I'm sorry.”

Antarctica could melt from the warmth in your chest.  “You don't even know what you're apologizing for.”

“I upset you. That's reason enough.”

You sigh, pulling him to join you on the plush booth seat you'd managed to secure for your date. “Well, there's nothing to forgive.”

He accepts the coffee you hand him, corners of his mouth curved in a gentle smile. He sips, and you stew in silence, knowing that you shouldn't be leaving him guessing like this. He'd want to know, you can tell by the way he's studying you, the way he wants to examine and turn over your thoughts and reactions like he does with everything else in his life. But he waits, lets you open up if you so wish.

God, he's perfect.

“I was just having second thoughts about my makeup,” you murmur finally, “And you kind of confirmed it. I told you it's stupid.”

“Not stupid at all. I'm sorry,” you wonder if he takes his coffee sweet to match his personality, this asshole, “It was an insensitive comment. And for what it's worth, you look beautiful regardless.”

“Inflamed cheeks and all?” 

He laughs, pulling you to his side, lips firmly planted on your cheek “Inflamed cheeks and all.”

Maybe you shouldn’t have worn the blush after all; you're sure he's making you flush scarlet just by being such a sweetheart.

“Oh Spencer knows her.” the teasing tone in Derek Morgan’s voice normally makes you smile, but something about his tone makes you pause. You stare at the TV, where a new show is running, eyes zeroed in on the blonde actress.

“Spencer knows her?”

“Knew,” your boyfriend supplies, “Very briefly.”

Derek Morgan gives him a knowing smirk that has your stomach churning all the way to the end of the night, when you’re getting ready for bed.

You're in his apartment, in an old pair of his plaid pajamas and a t-shirt that fits you surprisingly well. It always makes you smile, his slight frame, the way you could easily steal his clothes and they wouldn't dwarf you too much. But tonight, Derek's words ring over and over again, bringing forth the image of her—Lila Archer, dazzling, perfectly curvy, an actress on a popular TV series… and apparently, a friend of his. You aren't really sure where this jealousy is coming from. He’s a trustworthy man, and you know he loves you. Still, the image of the beautiful actress persists, even as you climb into bed with him.

He's reading as he usually is, the low lamplight casting shadows over the sharp planes of his face. Without even looking, he shifts the book to his other hand, freeing up an arm to draw you to his body. It's easy, quiet, his heartbeat fluttering beneath your ear as you rest your head on his chest. The exact opposite of your own heartbeat right now.

“What's on your mind?” 

“Nothing.” It should be a sin, the way you keep denying your feelings. But it's just so silly, and you're a grown woman. Jealousy and insecurity shouldn't be consuming you like this, and yet…

“Please don't lie to me,” his fingers are in your hair, tangling deep into the strands and seeking for your scalp. They’re soothing and rhythmic upon contact, lulling your body into a sense of relaxation even though your heart still hammers at your chest.

“Why do you say that?”

“You usually remind me to use the overhead lights when I read.” fingers putting pressure on your scalp, traveling to your temple. He has you in the palm of his hands, “You didn't do that tonight. And your heartbeat's going at an abnormally high rate, even though I'm quite certain you didn't do anything strenuous before coming to bed. What's going on?” 

Damn him and his attention to detail, and the way he’'s learned your little quirks and oddities. He puts down his book and you turn your face to hide into his chest.

You chew on your bottom lip, reminding youself that this is Spencer, he wouldn't judge. “How’d you know her?” your voice is muffled against his shirt, “Lila.”

“We had a case in Los Angeles.” he pauses, as if considering if he should say more. Right. Confidentiality. You nod, accepting his answer.

“Must have been a high profile one then,” you muse, “Or were you just hanging around Hollywood studios with Derek?” It’s an unfair statement, but you can’t help it.

“No, no, it wasn’t like that.” You look back up at him and oh there’s guilt swimming in pools of honey eyes. “I mean, we kissed once, but I swear, nothing beyond that.”

You exhale. A kiss. He's kissed a TV starlet. 

This shouldn’t even be an issue. This is before you were even in the picture after all. It’s not fair to uphold him to some weird standard. You certainly had relationships before him. But none of them had been as stunning as Lila Archer. And if he could have Lila Archer, then what is he doing with you? 

“Hey,” his other hand comes to stroke your cheek, the soft pad of his thumb rubbing small, soothing circles, “Talk to me.”

It's a difficult thing, being mature and communicating when you just want to stew, but god he's so good, you can't punish him for this, for anything. “I thought you said I was your first girlfriend?” you say instead, teasing him.

“You are, but you know, I’ve kissed before, and been on dates—”

“With Lila?”

“No, with JJ.”

Oh.

“JJ?”

JJ? His lovely, warm spring day beauty coworker JJ? He went on a date with her? And kissed Lila Archer. It’s almost ridiculous, thinking about the type of women he's had dalliances with—lithe, blonde, perfect, before he settled with you. 

“Yeah, I took her to a Redskins game,” he says, his hold on your face still light. There's room to move if you want to, space to pull away should you need it and god he's just so perfect.

“You have a type, huh?” it comes out unbidden, sharp but dulled by a bitter laugh.

“What do you mean?”

“With women,” you reply, trying to temper the snappy tone of your voice. It's not fair to lash out at him like this, you know that, yet you can't help it. It's habit at this point, a form of defense that your exes have all been too happy to participate, “I'm the outlier.”

And apparently, he's an outlier too because his voice grows even softer, eyes searching your face with an anxiety that fills you with guilt. “Is that a problem?”

“No,” you sigh, arm draping over his waist and hugging him tight. 

He returns the favor, tangling your legs together until you're a mess of limbs under his sheets. “Then what's wrong?”

“Sometimes I just feel like—like I'm not good enough to be dating you.” there it is, whispered into his chest, striking straight to his heart. “And now, knowing that you could have had all of these — these women who could pass for models—”

“Angel,” the way he says the nickname makes you hide even further into his chest. He closes his arms around you, holding you so tightly it's difficult to breathe, but that's okay. Let him fuse your bodies together, let his breaths be yours too, “That's not true, you know that's not true.”

“Isn't it? You're so — you. Intelligent, well decorated in academia, an an elite FBI unit…”

He laughs, “I’m also an endlessly annoying know it all, I failed my gun license exam more than once, I don't have abs—”

“You don't need abs,” you counter, fingers clutching on his shirt.

“Wouldn't you rather be with a guy with a six pack?”

“I'd rather be with you.”

He gently moves away from you, hands finding your face to make you look at him. “And I'd rather be with you.”

You pout, “You can't use my words against me, ‘s not fair.” 

He laughs again, leaning to capture your lips in the gentlest of kisses, “I want you, I chose you, and I adore you,” he's murmuring between each kiss, hands cradling your face, “And if you have these thoughts again, tell me, so I can keep reminding you just how much I love you.” 

➺ My masterlist | Event masterlist

➺ thank you so much for reading <3

[fahye]

book recs: may 2025

first recs post in nearly a year! I plead: having a baby. turns out they surgically remove all your free time, who knew?? but I've been reading in tiny doses and now am able to read in LARGER doses so let's do this. highlights from the past year.

*means not yet released; read as an ARC.

FLOWERS FROM THE STORM by laura kinsale - I only discovered kinsale recently but I was electrified. halfway between georgette heyer and dorothy dunnett. this book in particular is bonkers intense and absolutely wonderful. the hero has had an aphasic stroke and the heroine is a quaker. yes I know. read it anyway. life-changing.

THE SENTENCE by louise erdrich - literary fiction about a year in the life of a native american ex-felon bookseller haunted by a dead customer. I fucking adored this. it's like taking a big bite of a perfectly cooked steak: rich, meaty, satisfying, self-indulgent. a perfect treat for book nerds.

SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY by alexis hall - this is kind of a comedic romance novel about an aromantic woman who semi-kidnaps and marries her gay friend for Regency Reasons, and kind of a cross-country romp in which they collect sex partners, and very full of long grown-up discussions about feelings and family and priorities. it shouldn't work and yet I was HOOKED. the third in a series; I do recommend reading the other two for context.

*AN ACADEMIC AFFAIR by jodi mcalister - marriage of convenience for the extremely valid reason of academic partner employment clauses. I am obsessed with jodi's romances and this one is very sharp about how fucked up academia is while also being blissfully swoony and bantery. can't wait for the others in this series, too.

YOU ARE HERE: NINE MORE STORIES by iona datt sharma - I will sing iona's praises with my dying breath. deft, devastating, delicious. every one of these stories is a jewel. I will also throw in a rec for BLOOD SWEAT GLITTER, their recent romance novella about roller derby and trauma recovery.

WOOING THE WITCH QUEEN by stephanie burgis - romantasy girlies, assemble! this is a fun & satisfying story about a powerful woman trying to hold her kingdom together and the hot archduke she accidentally hires to be her magical librarian. found family! secret identities! a heartwarming banger.

*LADIES IN HATING by alexandra vasti - what if we were rival gothic novelists with a secret shared past and we got stuck in a Haunted Manor and had to have a lot of feelings about it while in surprising amounts of peril? sapphic histrom doesn't get better than this.

I SHALL NEVER FALL IN LOVE by hari conner - a graphic novel queer retelling of emma, which is one of my favourite austens. this is thoughtfully researched and grounded in history, has lovely and very funny art, and was a shot of pure joy.

*THE EVERLASTING by alix harrow - can't believe alix is out here grinding my heart into little pieces YET AGAIN. a tired lady knight and the historian trying to chronicle her life and control her ending get stuck in a time loop. this is about the violence of history and empire and narrative. it's brutal. it's romantic. it's so so so so SO good.

THUS WAS ADONIS MURDERED by sarah caudwell - I almost don't want to give too much away about this, because I went in with zero knowledge and had a blast. it's a murder mystery. it's extremely funny. go forth, enjoy.

EUPHORIA by lily king - not funny at all but a perfectly crafted, fairly short gem of a historical litfic novel. it's about the relationships between three anthropologists. it's very hard to describe. but I can't stop thinking about this book.

THE SAFEKEEP by yael van der wouden. also historical litfic and even shorter! even less funny! even more amazing! a bitter, repressed woman plays reluctant host to her brother's girlfriend; history, yearning, secrets and denial create a crucible of emotion and lust.

*THE DUKE by anna cowan - what if the rich, rakish, unrepentant duke of every regency romance was a woman? what if her love interest was a french courtesan who's blackmailing her? anna cowan's first book was WAY ahead of its time when it comes to fucky delicious gender stuff, and this one is equally great.

[veliseraptor]

a couple people expressed some interest in this so I'm going to try noodling on it in a more coherent fashion

The first thing is that - as other people have written about - when constructing a modern AU it is important to think about how characters in a historical or fantasy setting relate to violence in a proportional rather than literal way. MDZS has a setting where killing is more normalized than it generally is in modern society, both on a personal and a societal level.

(This is also why acting as though a fantasy villain blowing up a planet is equivalent to the concept of a real planet being blown up is silly on a level that's not just the equation of fictional and real; it's also a matter of scale in the setting or genre.)

So looking at Xue Yang's propensity for violence in canon as a way to consider how he might behave in a modern setting firstly needs to examine the ways in which that violence is calibrated to his canon setting.

It is definitely true that, even relative to other characters, Xue Yang's violence is marked as beyond the pale and extreme. So it would follow that the same would be true in a modern setting - but my argument is that it's not quite as straightforward as that, because there are certain contextual things about Xue Yang's violence that I think are important to take into consideration.

The first is to note that his most notorious act of extreme violence - the massacre of the Chang Clan - is one that occurs while he is under the protection of the Jin Sect, and he knows it. (In CQL, he gets permission from Wen Ruohan, though it's true that he never invokes that as a defense.) There is every indication that Xue Yang is thoroughly unconcerned about the prospect of getting in trouble for the massacre. Xue Yang isn't acting without being mindful of potential consequences; he's acting in the knowledge that he won't have to deal with them. The second is contextual: who Xue Yang chooses to target, and where. For instance: the people he tricks Xiao Xingchen into killing live in a remote area where he's a little risk of authority intervening. In both cases, Xue Yang is acting under conditions where he's unlikely to face consequences; where his violence is, if not considered acceptable, then something he can get away with.

Xue Yang can be reckless, but that recklessness is tempered by a very strong survival instinct and a recognition of what he needs to do in order to stay free and alive.

So then, to carry this into a modern context, particularly in a setting with a state-sponsored police and a defined legal system: I think that consciousness of the risks he'd be taking with acting violently would be even more acute, particularly because it's likely that he would be existing in a state where he'd come into contact with the legal system early for more minor crimes. Connected with that, there's the fact that the tolerance/acceptance of authority for violence outside of warfare or state acts is significantly lower, so any shielding he might have for acting violently illegally would be much thinner. Xue Yang is aware of the extent of what he can get away with, and "what he can get away with" is less, under a modern legal apparatus, than he could in the decentralized jianghu with its ad-hoc justice system.

When I say that I think Xue Yang's violent tendencies would be tempered by the existence of a modern legal system, I'm absolutely not saying that it's out of respect for that system. (I would hope that'd be obvious.) And I'm not saying that a modern Xue Yang wouldn't still possess violent tendencies (I think he probably would). I just think he's highly motivated to consider the context and targets for his violence in such a way that would keep it much less visible and extreme than it is in canon. There are still acceptable targets. But he's not going to kill a whole family. And I actually think he's likely to stop short of murder in general.

[fallouthomestaedau]

fallout and the "tribal" problem

I've been working on this for a while and I finally feel content enough with my thoughts to talk about it, now for reference I'm mixed first nations and Ukrainian and believe that i am at least somewhat qualified to to talk on the topic

Firstly I will break down what I'm talking about through different paragraphs, primarily based on which game the tribe originates from, and secondly, I'm not an anthropologist or historian, but simply a fan disgruntled with representation of peoples in media

I also wont be speaking on Fallout 76 as I know precious little about it, and due to its shift in gameplay and narrative elements from the rest of the games

one thing of importance though, what is a tribal, and what constitutes a tribe?

now for reference, this will be in the context of the fallout universe, as within most tribes or tribals are too broad or vague to categorize within proper definition

within the games, tribals are mentioned many times, often denoting someone who isn't from or doesn't practice the (often) majority culture of the speaker, usually these people are part of or practice a culture or tradition specific to themselves and their community, that being said, the word tribal or its plural tribals, is often used as a stand-in for "savage" or "primitive", often used insultingly, that being said this broad definition really relies on assumption and stereotypes, as there are many groups who would otherwise be classed as a tribe, such as the new Vegas brotherhood of steel, yet due to being "advanced they are classed as more than a tribe

with that in mind, the definition of tribe is quite loosely defined, a tribe could be a raider gang, a small eccentric community, a religious order or an actual unique culture. this can lead to some reinforcement of stereotypes and harmful depictions however

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fallout 1

despite its age, Fallout has precious little in the way of harmful representation of tribes, there is some discourse on whether the people of shady sand would count as a tribe, or as "tribals", mostly due to Fallout's broad categorization of what counts as a tribe. otherwise, there's not much in the game, if anything in regards to tribals or tribes, at this point the Khans are still just a raider group, though they do take notions and snippets of historic Mongolian culture and tradition in their daily life.

fallout 2

its in 2 we begin to finally see tribes and tribals, with the protagonist specifically being from one of these tribes, the arroyo tribe, specifically descended from vault dwellers, they seem to have lost a great deal of modern ideals and information, though this does make some sense, they had to focus on survival in a harsh environment, you'll teach your children how to hunt and grow crops before small motor repair in a society without motors, that being said certain tropes can be somewhat outdated, such as the tribe building the whole temple section in regards to seemingly being an entirely sedentary culture who are also tent dwelling, which ties in with how seemingly primitive the tribe is as a whole, while some knowledge being lost makes sense, what would take generations of isolation and ack of any unique discovery to really achieve, along with some of the more mystical elements, the second part however can be somewhat forgiven as psychers and other "mystical" people do exist in canon, the mysticism plays heavily into the "indigenous people have magic" type trope. even Moreso they specifically chose to give up their culture in the end to join the ncr instead

there is also mentions of the unnamed "primitive tribe", a coastal tribe with many beliefs in regards to death and spirits throughout the world, while much of their story is cut you still meet one named tribe member and several random tribals, they are however not great examples of an actual culture, having a very cartoonish depiction and belief system, along with speaking broken English but no proper explanation of a tribe specific first language, there is however some redeeming facts as they are still looked at as people, poorly represented people

least unoffensive example however are the cave dwelling cannibal tribals, the name alone is already a mash of offensive stereotypes and depictions of indigenous people, which other tribes within the game are specifically designed to resemble, they are very unintelligent, lacking proper speech, yet are also quite strong and fast, they are every depiction of which "enemy natives" have been depicted as, making the arroyo come across as the "noble savages" in place

second to last we have the vipers, referred to as raiders, a tribe and a cult, within this iteration they worshiped mutant cave dwelling snakes, sacrificing passers by to them and welcoming in the survivors, they however did develop unique traditions and a culture surrounding the snakes before being chased from new california. its heavily unclear what a proper definition of what they are would be

lastly that brings us to the new khans, while not yet a tribe, they have changed much, keeping little in regards to khan tradition with a single leader, along with his personal guard and dog, leading to less loyalty and cohesion. at this time however the khans were fractured into many raiding bands, its actually the death of Darion that unites them once again

within 2 we also begin seeing other groups such as the shi and the yakuza, who represent real world cultures but more specifically the descendants of those cultures, which i am not knowledgeable enough to talk on

fallout 3

in 3, we don't see nearly any tribals in the base game, the treeminders are often referred to as a tribe yet they are in my opinion closer to a religious order with cultural elements, the specific titles and worship of bob and Harold are two of their defining traits at a glance, and are more reminiscent to religion in place of culture, they devote their lives to a "living god" responsible for regrowing nature in a secluded oasis, in truth the group is a cult (a mostly harmless one) and not really a tribe

another halfway example is the unnamed tribe in which the merchant crow was born to, they are specifically referred to as a tribe and have unique cultural beliefs, such as revering eyebots as wind spirits and that is all we know of them. there is literally nothing else to really say about them

finally we get to the point lookout tribals, a "tribe" of people who are sent out to find a seed pod that produces a hallucinogenic gas, to which the initiate is taken back to the tribe to be lobotomized, and in said state may be left unable to care for themselves properly, or worse, dead and those who aren't left vegetative are under the control and influence of a brain in a jar feuding with a ghoul while attempting global domination via telekinesis, as they believe he has ascended his material form and is guiding them to do so as well

not even counting the swampfolk who are somewhere between local cultists to a mutated subspecies of human, there is precious little in the way of positive tribal peoples, with an actual culture, instead getting vague and sometimes offensive examples

fallout 4

plain and simple there aren't any tribes or tribals, a fact which would ordinarily leave this section mostly blank, but i have a nitpick on that fact. my ancestors were originally from the region, the Abenaki, who were allied to other local tribes, and putting modern day tribal identity issues aside, the region had many native peoples, and there could have been an attempt at a positive depiction of a tribe, yet there's nothing, nothing throughout the base game, and all the DLC's, not even an attempt. and that frustrates me somewhat, as they could've shown indigenous people surviving and keeping their culture despite everything but instead did away with anything tribal related

fallout new Vegas

the tribes in new Vegas have such a wide array of representation, from good allegory to horrible caricatures, for instance, the tribe with the longest history in the series, the great khans, who were once the new khans, who originated from the khans. they have finally developed into a unique culture with a focus on personal freedom and and individual strength and yet also a people who believe in unity and cooperation, and they have even been given compelling motives, they are a raiding culture, people who take what they cannot find or make, similar to many real world cultures, they have a history of ethnobotany, something that was enough for the followers of the apocalypse to take notice, they had tradition and honours, and their plight is somewhat reflective of the real world, their non combatants and innocents, gunned down, and the survivors left to pick up the pieces, trying to handle their trauma from the experience, and turning to the substances they sell in order to numb the pain. the great khans aren't necessarily good people, but they are displayed as a genuine people, suffering from the actions of a colonizing power, and that is some of the best representation of native history in recent history.

the boomers are a tribe dedicated to personal security, taking the belief of right to bear arms as a cultural motto, thy originate from an armory vault, and completely shun the outside world. they refer to themselves as a tribe and have unique customs that have formed from their unique lifestyle, all things considered they make a good bit of logical sense in universe and in their formation. there isn't however much more to say on their existence as a tribe.

we even meet several new California raider tribes, the remnants of the vipers, pushed into the Mojave by ncr expansion, they've lost much of their culture, turning to chems and raiding, along with the jackals, they have been reduced to cannibalistic chem addicts, and in all honesty canon fodder, which does bother me slightly less, as theyre not the sole "tribes" within the game, i personally believe there couldve been some more done to show some of their history but they do fit the niche they were designed for

Honest hearts tribes are, rough to say the least, one descended of indigenous people with a unique culture and traditions, and another descended of children who may have been going to a residential school type institution (the lore is vague) who are origionally from a country who has been under the thumb of imperious countries for centuries, such as spain and the us, and yet what little culture they get is a mixture of hodgepodge words from several languages and just oddly spoken English (something historically done to mock native languages), the tribes don't have any real leadership outside of two Mormon missionaries, the two people, who could give us an example of the culture and values are devout followers of these Mormons, one who is being shown to be following in the footsteps of his hated enemy, this being Joshua graham, who is clearly a parallel to Caesar, making a peaceful people into his warriors, to deal a blow to the man who betrayed him, or Moreso a tribe who wish to follow Caesar, not for the safety and peace of the canyon system these people inhabit, but from vengeful hatred, using religion as an excuse to commit bloody war and Daniel, who spends his days infantilizing a culture and treating them as uninformed children, going as far as to hide the death of certain tribes members who had been evacuated from the area from their families and claiming a group of adults, who survive and thrive, being incapable of making their own decisions, as well as all that nonsense, the "good endings" involve fleeing their native lands and worshiping a Mormon missionary as a god, all that being said, the tribes are far from a good depiction. the khans are a much better example of native people than the tribes implied to be actual native peoples

the sorrows, a fitting name for the tribe, originating from a group of stranded children, they are a culture of pacifists who also hunt the largest mammalian carnivores in the region and are deemed "too innocent". the main member we meet near idolizes Daniel, the resident missionary, though this is somewhat understandable as he saved her life while in labour. this presents as a moral dilemma however as we are tasked with withholding the information of her murdered husband and her traumatized children from her, for the benefit of Daniel himself. the other major tribe member we meet is the shaman, who speaks next to nothing, sends us on a "vision quest" via hallucinogens where we fight a great evil being, and receive a marker of tribal status, the tribes primary defining symbol, a Yao guai gauntlet. the whole quest has bad vibes of white saviorism's, especially as if you rush through, you may not learn any actual meanings behind it. you may not even learn that the sorrows have domesticated gecko's. there is the basis for such a unique culture but everything is left so barebones, the tribe doesn't even have actual homes, the entire tribes clothing looks identical, and they have no clear leader, social hierarchy or even defined equality or individualism. there's no sense that they are anything more than a dozen people existing in the same place while ignoring one another. and the endings they get are either to leave, to stay and maybe learn mercy or become aggressive and warlike, all based on the actions of one person, who in their "naive" "innocent"z minds taught them their first act of violence, making them crave more

the dead horses irk me, they are implied to be descended of the Navajo, but aside from language hold no real ties. failed chances to represent native people as surviving cultures theres many things that irk me, they are named for the area in which they live, but hold precious little in regards to horses as a whole, an animal that had become important in their ancestors day to day, they are hunters and foragers, keeping an eye on local environments and the animals within, but have no cultural inclination to herding, something that was their ancestors lifeline, they have a language based on Navajo but next to no cultural identifiers, instead they are shown to tattoo themselves to mark special occasions and important moments in ones life, they have coming of age ceremonies and traditional weapons, personal and cultural taboo's and that's it, its not clear what their homes are like, what their day to day is, if they're agrarian or semi nomadic, they are designed to be the "brave warriors" to the sorrows "peaceful savage" trope, and the main warriors against the "evil tribe", its all face value

the white legs, the evil tribe who don't know how to craft, to farm, to build, a tribe whose sole survival supposedly hinges on the availability of raiding and killing, who are presented as too dimwitted and are offering themselves up to Caesar on a platter, they are the stereotypical enemy tribe, they are canon fodder for the courier to valiantly kill, and either doom them to death right away, or leave them to the mercy of another tribe, either way ending in death. their whole point was to be a culture wiped from the face of the earth

the 80's are a territorial tribe who we know nothing of, outside of their location near the salt flats of salt lake city, their whole existence was to destroy the last of the white legs. there is nothing else to them

in new vegas, we hear the names of many dead tribes, the hang dogs, the twisted hairs, the twin mothers, cultures wiped out and assimilated by the legion, as well as tribes pushed to extinction via people like prospectors, and land owners, killed for the local resources. these two examples are both instances id like to talk about in greater detail in their own post

new vegas tribes, the 4 tribes of new vegas themselves, the three families of the strip, and the kings, each group shedding tribal identity to relive old world "glory", the kings, worshipping a misunderstood depiction of elvis, and living by the rules of an impersonation school, which they turned into a "gang" identity, keeping order of the rabble and the unwanted. the white glove society, the omertas and the chairmen, all under the thumb of mr house, coerced or convinced to become the three families. we know very little of their original cultures, aside from a few names, they have wholly embraced a new identity, disposing of those who would otherwise choose the old ways

there are also cultural groups, such as the new Canaanites who aren't technically a tribe but still a different culture group to the majority culture

afterthoughts:

all in all, I find fallout has so far, had such few positive examples purposefully creating a tribal group or Indigenous allegory, the sole example is the Khans and much of the historical symbolism is lost to so many under the guise of moral vs immoral and general lack of knowledge

it is disheartening, in a world so chock full of symbolism and satire and synchronicity, that there's so little reference to how truly multicultural the world really is, of the hundreds of pre-war tribes and isolated settlements with unique traditions, there's so little within the games to acknowledge any of it

the majority of the tribes we meet are or can be canon fodder for the sole fact of padding enemy numbers, instead of deepening the narrative of old-world concepts returning to harm the present

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

As a Art History and Heritage researcher, I have to say “Nosferatu” (2024) geniality cannot be underestimated. This is an absolute historic triumph. Robert Eggers recreated the early 19th century setting, way of thinking and behaving, so masterfully, he actually convinced the general audience into believing the Victorian characters are the “good guys” here, and the Eastern European Pagan shaman-priest is the villain of the story, and that his protagonist Ellen is a passive victim at his hands. And now many are starting to realize that’s not the case and are throwing a fit or making weird mental gymnastics to validate their incorrect interpretations.

This isn’t surprising because this tale has years on the making, and it’s an entirely new story under a familiar make-up. Academics and researchers helped shape this story (History and Romanian folklore; Eggers is an occult scholar himself but he only talked about it publicly once); Academic thesis were used to create the script and the world building (“Dracula” literacy analysis; Şolomonari connection to Zalmoxis worship); a dead language was reconstructed for this (fictional but very well-researched alongside linguistics specialized on Balkan extinct languages); two different types of English are spoken (late 16th century and 19th century). The historical accuracy of everything is on point: Romanian Folklore, Victorian sexuality views, Victorian medicine, demonization of Pagan beliefs by Christianity, 19th century racist theories; the threat of female sexuality as a contagious disease (Ellen), etc. If this wasn’t horror I would even recommend this film as a study tool to understand the early 19th century.

The comprehension of these references and themes are way out of your league. Many of these are academic-level knowledge; others should be general knowledge (Victorian era as sexually repressed) but apparently aren’t(?) Either way, the entire “discourse” around this film comes from the general audience lack of historical knowledge and ignorance about these themes and references. I’m an academic myself, and I had to breakdown the entire story to see what this is actually about. Some of you watched this film once and already think you know? When you can’t even interpret one scene from this film correctly, and think Orlok appeared to Ellen when she was a little kid or that Ellen’s father abused her?? The prologue and her scene with Von Franz contradicts both these “interpretations”. Most of you don’t even realize it was Ellen who cursed Orlok to be a strigoi, to begin with (or probably don’t know what a “strigoi” is).

The cast and crew already explained what this film is about in interviews, but there appears to be a weird rejection of everything the creators of this story have to say. But Robert Eggers probably isn’t concerned because he didn’t make this film for you. The way modern audiences digest Art is extremely bizarre to me. This is not how interpretation of Art works, and I tell you this as someone who interprets Art in its historical context for a living. This is my job. And this is a director obsessed with historical accuracy and with a strict artistic view. There are no “multiple opposite interpretations” here. Because he’s using specific academic thesis to create his story. On a personal level you can see whatever you want to see, but if your intention is to understand this story know you are incorrect. And the majority of the “breakdowns” and “interpretations” out there are incorrect and the only world I can use to describe them is “bullshit”. Because these content creators and influencers have no idea of what they are talking about. But the Internet gave them the illusion they do, and they are very proud in displaying their ignorance to the world. Or those who are going around making jokes about “wanting to bounce on Orlok crazy style”. Your anti-intellectualism gives me second-hand embarrassment. This is the peak definition of functional illiteracy, and what’s worse is that the folks who want to know will come across this content and think “yeah, that’s what’s this film is about”.

This entire story a huge middle finger to Christian Victorian society. This a celebration and vengeance of Paganism on Christian civilization, embodied in both Orlok and Ellen characters. Robert Eggers called Ellen the only heroic character of his story; and Ellen and Orlok share the same spirit, the same nature (one Ellen rejects until she embraces it, at the end). They are the true heroes here. The Pagan priestess and the Pagan priest-shaman bringing death and plague upon the Christian civilization that demonized them using their Sex Magick, and end it with Sex Magick too, to give birth to the New Age of Aquarius (which was already the occult meaning of the 1922 “Nosferatu” ending, Eggers included the divine feminine instead of the “virgin sacrifice”). That’s why Eggers describes his ending as a “sacred marriage” between Ellen and Orlok: their sexual encounters are ritualistic, and always have been, and it’s Ellen sexual energy that conjures Orlok, every time: she’s the one who calls out to him, always. She has full agency over their connection (and Herr Knock ritual scene should tell you this; Ellen ending their connection when she met Thomas, and sending the maiden token to reconnect).

Everything that happens in this story is according to Ellen’s will. She has Orlok where she wants him to be; and, yes, she plays both Thomas and Orlok, and weaponizes them against each other (“Wuthering Heights” inspiration, hello?). Because she’s a dark character (like every Gothic horror protagonist), and her innocence and naivety are a front she puts on for Victorian society, her true self is only shown in some occasions because this story gives you several POVs. And that’s why Lily-Rose Depp tells us Ellen is “not a victim at all” because “she’s the one calling the shots the entire time”. She’s like Catherine; she wants to fuck around with Heathcliff/Orlok, while being married to the respectable Edgar/Thomas. But here it’s Orlok that’s not having any of it. I would even say the only victimized character here is Thomas himself, who gets caught up in the middle of something he doesn’t know nor understands and gets his entire life wrecked as a result (like Edgar Linton).

This whole story is about Ellen liberating herself from Victorian society, taking ownership of her own sexuality (one that according to Victorian era belongs to her husband) and embracing her nature, as she fully accepts Orlok at the end. She’s as evil and as good as he is. It’s not that hard to understand.

[communistkenobi]

Kind off topic from your actual posts but I like when you use the phrase “ceding ground” in an argument. I may have said this before. It’s a little combative which is helpful in terms of thinking about what in the goal of making a certain statement or responding to something someone said.

YES!!!!! it has been so helpful to my understanding of the world to think of all discourse as ‘situated,’ as part of and connected to (contested) social and political contexts. speech is an act that does something in the world. It is why we understand saying “I do” or “I promise” is both a speech and an act, not merely speaking but speaking a social obligation into existence through speech. And we also understand that these words are backed by various forms of power - “I do” as a wedding vow is a speech-act, but one that only has force as a speech-act because the church and the state enshrine marriage legally & institutionally. To say “I do” is to get married, to enter into a social unit (‘the family’ or ‘the household’) that is the foundation of many state administrative and economic processes like census data, tax records, wages, urban planning, social service provisions, and so on. 

And in that context we understand that speech is not just contributing free-floating ideas to some public square or marketplace where we all weigh and measure the merits of each one, but that it is tied to and articulates specific visions of power. When speaking of “biological sex,” this is not an innocent or simple ‘fact’ that is being contested; you are invoking the authority of medical institutions that produce this source of knowledge & all the violences therein. You are invoking justifications for eg US political histories of white women being as legally classified as non-labourers and non-white women as an eternally labouring underclass. You are invoking histories of psychiatric violence that insists transgender people are suffering from behavioural, sexual, and identity disorders. You are invoking the rationale behind medical violence done to intersex people. “Sex is biological” is a violent sentiment because it is produced as knowledge through violence.

And of course many people don’t realise they are doing this, they don’t know these histories, but the principle is generalisable and can be recognised by anyone (hate speech is probably the most ‘classic’ example for guys who love talking about free speech, see also yelling “bomb” in an airport). discourse is historically situated & the refusal to acknowledge this is endlessly frustrating. Like the “Protestant work ethic” didn’t emerge from the ground fully formed one day, it was produced in material processes of history. You don’t just ‘say’ something, you articulate visions of power. And “sex is biological” is a eugenicist, colonial vision of power. That is contested ground and not an inch should be given, not in discourse, not in research, not in policy, not in law

[curiositydoorunlocked]

The Recent News

Spoilers ahead for Stranger Things 5, including photos of actors on set.

Look, something about all this (the leak + the photo situation) feels… fishy, and I can see people in various tags are getting various levels of upset by it. So as someone who has been around the block a couple of times, I want to say something. 

First of all: hi, everyone! I’m glad to be here. I’ve been a fan of ST since early-mid 2020 and involved in the fandom since mid-late 2020 (on other accounts, which have since been deleted), so I feel at least marginally qualified to say what I’m going to say. That being said, I drifted away from the fandom before S5 filming began and haven't watched the show in a while; if I get anything wrong please feel free to correct me.

First I want to talk about Bridgerton S3. I closely followed that production in 2022 and 2023. Like Stranger Things, Bridgerton is a high-budget Netflix original show with a large cast, lots of public interest, an active fandom, and what I would call "special considerations" for filming. (In Bridgerton's case it's the historical element; in ST it's the sci-fi/fantasy element plus the historical element, albeit to a lesser degree.) They filmed for a shorter period of time than ST5 is expected to film for, yes, but many of the circumstances are/were similar. That brings me to my point: when Bridgerton S3 was filming, the best we got from the main cast was a handful of photos a) taken from relatively far away that b) did not spoil anything major. Luckily for us, the photos were clear, but in the end they didn't really amount to anything more than eye candy, something to get excited over.

In contrast, these photos from the ST5 set are clear, close, and most importantly reveal seemingly significant story beats/results. (Okay, the Mike and Hopper one isn't super close or clear, I'll give ya that. But it's still pretty damn close for a set that's supposedly locked down! Especially if they're filming a scene possibly related to a major character's death/disappearance!) Kinda odd, right? I'm not necessarily saying they were leaked on purpose to misdirect fans, because I'm not that confident in myself. I don’t have any insider/industry knowledge; I can only claim a healthy (perhaps too healthy?) level of skepticism. But I do want to put that possibility out there, because I think it’s an important one to consider.

“But wait,” you might say, “many parts of S4 were leaked, and leaked accurately at that. What’s to say these aren’t real too?”

That’s a fair point! Maybe production hasn’t learned their lesson from S4; maybe they’re truly terrible at preventing leaks and that’s the end of the story. Yes, they’ve spoken a little about security measures in the lead-up to S5 but that doesn’t mean those security measures were implemented well, or even at all.

Even keeping that in mind, I nonetheless implore everyone to chill the hell out. I say this again, with so much love: CHILL THE HELL OUT. This has happened before: even with the accurate leaks and clear photos we got during S4 filming, we lacked so much context. Mike and El’s “I love you” scene is a great example of this. There was quite the brouhaha over that leak in certain corners of the fandom… and yet the actual scene turned out nothing like the phrase “Mike finally says ‘I love you’ to El” implies. Another example are these photos (see above; my apologies for the poor quality!) of the Hawkins group in the parking lot of The War Zone. When those photos were leaked, I recall speculation that the scene would appear at the very end of the finale, that it related to an apocalypse situation, and so on, but not so! In the show it appeared before the final battle with Vecna: the town was in a panic, yeah, but no apocalypse.

That’s what I mean about chilling the hell out. We can’t assume the photos/leaks are genuine—and even if we did indulge that assumption (which is fair given production’s history!) we can’t assume we have the whole story.

Hang in there, folks. We survived S4 production and we’ll survive S5 production too :)

TL;DR: Hi, I’m new and also not new here. I made this account just to talk about this photo/leak situation because that’s how passionate I am about this godforsaken show. This is a little weird, but whether the leaks/photos are real or planted, stay calm. We know so little right now. Don’t waste your energy on blind panic, not when we still have another year(ish) to go.

[mrghostrat]

Hello and good morning/day/night :]

I was wondering, in BNF, we’ve gotten tiny little bits of information about the ‘Nice and Accurate Prophecies’ (not sure if that’s the correct title, sorry) book and TV series, if there was anything else you could tell us about it?

Character names, storylines, plots, any fun details you may have made up or otherwise, etc, etc.

I just think it’s sweet how interested both Aziraphale and Crowley are in the series, and if you might be as interested, if not more, in it too.

Thank you, and have a lovely Sunday. 🫶

this is it, my leash has snapped, i'm wild in the streets, thank u for asking; i'm gonna go be insufferable now

(hi @neil-gaiman if you see this, i think it's safe to read, but it does border on being fan fic. i'm writing a fic where crowley and aziraphale are an artist + writer in an online fandom, much like we are for good omens, and this is the fake story i've made for them to be fans of 💛)

The Nice and Accurate Prophecy

info dump of the fake 5 book series by Agnes Nutter (1985-1992) and its fake fandom:

The Nice and Accurate Prophecy

The Strange and Improbable Prophecy

The Vague and Perfidious Prophecy

The Tense and Harrowing Prophecy

The Faint and Ineffable Prophecy

a dramatic, layered story with a bizarre and unexpectedly lovable cast of characters, humour that hits you out of nowhere, and a lot of attitude from the narrator. a la Good Omens, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

fantasy/historical fantasy and mildly action & romance

a la good omens, a witch and a witchfinder become friends and help each other throughout history, despite being on opposite sides. they get closer as they fight against the immoral plays from their prospective sides (the witchfinder army and a demonic cult the witch was born into) that each lose sight of their core values in a bid to hold more power over the world.

the story is set primarily in a medieval fantasy era, but suddenly jumps to the present in the later books, catching everyone off guard and giving a whole new context to enjoy the story. the challenges they face parallel the earlier story but in a modern take with modern technological twists. the modern era is the late 80s, since that's when it was written.

the witch reincarnates, similar to doctor who, due to a high class black magic ritual they performed in their arrogant youth (which they were NOT supposed to have access to). they've had long lifetimes where they die of old age, and others where they've barely managed to live a year. their reincarnations aren't entirely random; they will reincarnate according to their growth and preferences as a person (a la Magical Boy's magical outfit generations), which includes fluctuation in gender identity. their pronouns fluctuate depending on each "face" they wear, but have canonically been a "they" before. the good side of the fandom (crowley & aziraphale) default to they/them as an overall rule. they do have a name, but they like to change that too, so the fandom almost exclusively calls them witch, or witchy.

the witchfinder also has a name, but the fandom have taken to calling him witchfinder to match the fact that witchy is called by their role. it also helps that a lot of the witchfinder narration refers to him by role instead of name. he is human, 30ish in appearance, but at the end of the first book, the witch fears to lose him and curses him with immortality against his knowledge to try and keep him safe.

witch is crowley-coded, witchfinder is aziraphale-coded. my to-do list includes an illustration of the two of them played by michael and david :') but i picture them being kind of like newt and anathema for the most part.

ship names include witch/finder, witchwitch, w² or witch², and witchfound.

at the start of the first book, they meet and become friends without knowing each other is a witch & finder. the witchfinder is a bit bumbly, like newt, and the witch is cool and suave but neurotic and insecure like many human au variations of crowley (major overcompensation vibes). witch is male at the start of the first book. their friendship is secure when witch finds out he's a witchfinder, so there's less "oh my god i'm friends with the enemy, is he going to kill me in my sleep?" and more "ah fuck, Lets Drink About This"

there's battles, horseback riding, camping out in dark woods, disappearing and losing each other for months at a time, and many missed connections as they try to work together against two common enemies, whilst keeping up the facade that they're on their respective team's sides.

there's charged chemistry in the first book, but it's more plot heavy. there's hints of shippy moments in the 2nd book that fall in between the plot. there's a Moment of almost confession in the 3rd book, and a non romantic kiss towards the end (we gotta, for neil). they're pretty much married in the 4th book, securely at each other's side, but never actually talk about it until the end, and there's a more explicitly stated shippy connection in the 5th book.

agnes herself is a total recluse who drops books out of nowhere then goes back to existing somewhere in the english countryside (people presume). she's happy to supply signed copies to fundraisers and conventions, and sometimes random bookshops across the country will be vandalised with genuine autographs on the inside covers. she's notoriously pedantic about being involved with adaptions behind the scenes, but she has no social media and isn't ~around~. she once did a talk when she was presented with an honorary doctorate, and did a single book signing when the first Prophecy book came out, but beyond that she keeps to herself.

there are a small handful of quotes from her in behind-the-scenes footage talking vaguely about character intensions and clarifying world building, but she likes to leave things up to interpretation like neil does. it's in these few snippets of interaction we've seen from her that she's steadfastly supportive of intersectionality and lgbt rights, like staring dead-eyed at an interviewer when they ask her a ridiculously heteronormative question about the characters (like "have you read my books?")

adaptions include:

(most adaptions start like the book, with a male witch at the beginning that turns into a female witch when they first regenerate. the early ones usually change the pacing by switching to a female actor by the time they realise witchfinder is a witchfinder, unlike in the book where he's male for this scene, and there's way less Charged™ chemistry between the m/m witch/finder.)

Feature Film: late 90s, kind of cheesy, but good spirited fantasy (a la Indiana Jones). focuses on the first book alone, with hints to a sequel that never happened.

Abandoned TV Pilot: early 2000s, a little too dramatic but still a good time (a la the Dungeons and Dragons 2000, ASOUE 2004). good source of gifs and Moments™ but the fandom is generally Fine with it being abandoned.

Stage Performance: late 2000s-early 2010s, a stellar stage adaption of the first book with elements of the 90s movie. f/m witch/finder the whole way through. one cast used m/m actors but it was a short run and only a handful of fans were lucky enough to catch or remember it. crowley would give his left arm (or someone's, anyway) to have experienced it, so a fan sent him some flip phone camera footage of it that he keeps on a harddrive in his safe.

HBO Streaming Series: late 2010s-present, high quality, highly revered, resurged the fandom's popularity and spread the series further overseas. made in america, but doesn't try to americanise the series. extremely respectful to the books, with easter eggs to the film, and is working its way through the entire book series (a la The Witcher netflix series). f/m witch/finder, but has had one episode that included some flash backs/montages of different witch faces. probably like 15 minutes total screentime of a male witch played by a ncuti gatwa level/style of actor, which the fandom has giffed, edited, and screencapped to oblivion.

Several bonus books: Agnes has written a few extra books (a la The Unauthorized Autobiography of Lemony Snicket and The Beatrice Letters), as well as curated some anthologies from other authors (a la A Study In Sherlock). there are a total of 3 anthologies so far, in which other authors have written stories about the characters in their own tellings. basically like canonised, published fan fiction, curated and authorised by agnes herself. There's also an unfinished graphic novel that retells the book series (a la The Adventure Zone comic), but has been WIP/unheard of since the 3rd book.

[wanderingskylooker]

Their favourite drinks (Super 4: Canon)

I cheated a bit with the title, we don’t have enough info to guess which their favourite drink is, but we can guess through the stereotypes, a little background and historical knowledge, the regular diet they have.

Super 4

Probably the team has a mix of the regular diets from each world, a bit from the pirates, a bit from the knights and a bit from the fairies, sometimes some fruit from the lost world too; although not from the technopolians, because we don’t know what do they currently eat, but if they keep using pills, I don’t think the rest of the team is willing to chew milk.

(Ep: Baby Dragon)

I need to make a clarification, and it is that I think about the Super 4 as minors in the most widespread legal code, less than 18 years old, but if we think about their historical context, it wouldn't coincide. To sum up, to each one of their worlds: Gene is an adult, Twinkle is an adult, Ruby is a minor (I am not completely sure), Alex is a minor, and we don’t know about Alien, but we can presume he is seen as an adult too (already working on a post of their ages).

Technopolis

They eat, and probably drink too, pills. Maybe they are having an adaptation process to add normal eatables in their meals after getting rid of Computer Supreme, but they clearly keep using pills to substitute normal food.

I do not think Technopolis completely lacks regular animal or vegetable sources and that’s why they have to use pills, but they made pills because they are more efficient. In my opinion they have ultra advanced fields and farms somewhere else in Technopolis’s underground or something like that.

Fairies

They are vegetarian, I cannot say vegan because they use honey and eat pastries normally, and, as far as I know, being vegan is not only food, but also not using animal-derived stuff, like wool clothing.

(Ep: Some Like it Magical and The Silence of the Statues)

I don’t know if they are by choice, to be more linked to pureness and nature, or because they are a herbivore species. They are also very insect-like, so sap, honey and dew are very plausible options (they are constantly compared to mosquitos, so if someone wants a creepy idea, they may be able to drink blood too) to be some of their common drinks. I wouldn’t add pollen because it looks like it is weird even for them to eat directly from the flowers or some part of them.

(An alien replacing a fairy. A scene made to denote that fairies are strange.)

(Ep: Fairy Snatchers)

They would be able to drink alcohol, but I don’t think they do that. Maybe they would have a special magic variation of “ceremonial drink with strange effects”.

I imagine Twinkle in the middle of a Kingsland dinner like:

([WOY] Ep: The Family Reunion)

Pirates

They have a tavern, they are stereotypical pirates, long live to ron and whiskey.

Probably pirates have a steel stomach, as real pirates had to survive with horrible conditions for several months (the few sailors who came back alive from the first trip around the world ate even the leather of their clothes due to how hungry they were), and Playmobils seem to be much more resistant to any kind of damage than average humans. I know the popular headcanon is the idea of the characters being French, but the pirates and knights are based on English/British culture, so I’ll compare them to England’s pirates and knights (maybe also Scotland, Ireland and Celtics).

I think the corsairs are well known. The pirates don't have a crown to name them private pirates (yes, the pirates are a democracy (corrupted and sexist but they are). Real pirates are thought to be more democratic than it was originally believed too), and they don't seem mainly interested in being seen as gentlemen, but they enjoy some level of fanciness, such as Sharkbeard having a differentially better clothing, purple, which was an expensive colour, and the pirate games take into account acrobatic choreography or just like to brag about it. British culture doesn't seem unknown to them, but probably is one of those “too fancy” drinks they enjoy in private.

(Ep: Saving Pirate Sharkbeard)

Knights

Wine, lots of wine. They are medieval, they gave alcohol to children. Wine was more restricted to special occasions than for minors, but Kingsland has “special occasions” each two weeks, with tournaments and such, and Alex is a prince; he wouldn't have problems reaching for expensive drinks.

I don't joke about the wine, but probably it wasn't the only drink they had, nor the most common for minors. Likely, they had mead and some kind of mild beer, those widely more extended than wine.

Mysterios and Furios

Togetherness because I do not think their diets are extremely different.

I don't know about American pre-colonial cultures, so I am not sure on which they are based. South America is awfully big, with lots of tribes and cultures, therefore I cannot be as sure as I was with the rest on what their drinks are based on the real world, but I have some theories. Mainly, based on the food from the surrounding area of the show, bananas, coconuts, fruits we don't know which are… They look like some kind of pods, the Mysterios seem likely to make juices or fruit drinks. If I placed them in Central America, they could have corn, cocoa, cinnamon and sugar, as drinks derivatives of these.

(Ep: Super Rock)

I can't take out of my mind the idea of them being like Oompa Loompas and loving cocoa beans.

The Furios on the other hand, wanted to cook Gene and Rock Brock. If they didn't want to eat their meat, they could have been making a huge variation of a Mezcal (a Mexican alcoholic drink with a larva inside the liquid).

[thebreakfastgenie]

The Hamilton fandom was extremely fun in the beginning. It lasted like a couple weeks but it was fun at first because it was mostly history nerds, some who were already doing hilarious shitposting and hornyposting about founding fathers (some of them persist to this day and they're great) and some who were newcomers because of the musical because it hadn't occurred to them before but who had preexisting interest in history. When we all had a baseline of historical knowledge and context the absurdity of it being founding fathers was the point. It was the same vibe as weird little girls deciding their dolls are historical figures from whatever nonfiction book they read and having them go on crazy doll adventures. But of course the musical was super popular and dragged in a bunch of people who did not know a lot about history and even when they learned the facts (the musical did help with this! a lot of kids looked up figures from American history because of it and read at least wikipedia pages if not actual books) they didn't really synthesize them or put them into context so the vibe of using real figures from American history as dolls was... different. It quickly became the worst fandom I have personally experienced and it deserves the reputation it has now but it was fun once and I hung on in that fandom for quite a while mostly because the early days were so fun.

[redd956]

Worldbuilding Pantheons & Gods: Representation of Society

Representation of Values, Common Workforces, and Societal Norms

Gods represent the aspects of a society, from major to little ways. They are the embodiments of prevalent parts of the daily life, and change drastically overtime alongside the societies that worship them.

To think of religion as one rigid thing is incredibly wrong in both historical and modern contexts.

Let's take Ancient Greece for example. Every god is a focused look into the every day life of the people of Ancient Greece. From sea travel, to hunting, to fertility, to household roles, to wine, to natural disasters.

Zeus isn't just a god of thunder, his behavior is representative of both men's unchecked sexist behavior of the ancient times, the expectant fears that parents and women would have for their daughters, and a symbol of masculinity.

Hades wasn't just a god of the underworld. He is a representation of how death can abduct and suddenly whisk away your family at any moment. His domain is a the truth about how once someone is dead that's it, there's no crossing back to the world of the living without some sort of profound miracle.

So worldbuilding...

Think about how your society's behaviors reflect into their religion, whether it be the gods, traditions, or even holidays. Some places to pull from...

Where they get their food?

How often do they go to war?

What's their relationship with the ocean?

What animals are important to them?

What are common jobs?

Do any natural disasters repeatedly haunt the area?

What virtues are valued?

Are there any special imports?

Adapting & Religious Trade

Gods themselves change and adapt both regionally and as new insights occur in a society's knowledge. For the Spartan's Aphrodite wasn't just a goddess of love and beauty, but a goddess of war too. Dionysus was a party god of wine, but to his own cult a god of madness and counterculture.

Ever wonder why gods always had farming and hunting tools for weapons? Tridents, bows, nets, scythes. That's what the ancient peoples were most familiar with.

Who is to say a god of death doesn't reap souls like a farmer cuts their crops. The Ancient Egyptians thought of the underworld as a field of reeds. When trading amongst each other these stories of farm-based death spread.

Not every religious group heard foreign stories and completely distanced themselves from it. Often times they would just assume that they followed the same pantheon, but with different names. The Greeks and Romans were most known for this, but even early versions of Abrahamic religions did the same thing.

Convergence

We also see things like evolutionary convergence of similar places in religious beliefs. Everywhere on the coast is going to have a story of a great ancient flood, because they were familiar with floods. Snakes and dragons are so prevalent in thousands of cultures, but snakes are also everywhere and a rumored natural phobia of humans.

Of course every religion and culture handled these things differently still, but the similarities are bound to form.