#would it perhaps strain credulity? perhaps

[countessrivers]

I really, truly think that they should have kept Spider in the show, grievously injuring/potentially killing him each and every season, only for him to be back, perfectly fine in the next one, with minimal , if any, explanation. A running joke that he cannot be killed.

[theunsinkableship1]

SMOKE AND MIRRORS?

Smoke and mirrors? I don't know, that is what I know for certain, but...

The events surrounding “chaos week” remain the greatest dissonance in the narrative of Luke Newton and Nicola Coughlan allegedly being in love with other people. The sequence of events during that week, coupled with their subsequent behavioral shifts, feels too deliberate and well-timed to dismiss as mere coincidence. Chaos week was not random, it was purposeful, likely orchestrated with fandom in mind. This alone speaks volumes about the complexity of their situation and the unique bond they share.

Before diving into the details, we must recognize that Luke and Nicola have always been unapologetically open about their connection, their mutual admiration, and their playful interactions. Prior to June 12, their relationship was marked by overt displays of affection and an almost magnetic camaraderie that was loud, proud, and undeniable. The abrupt shift to being elusive and discreet post-chaos week is suspicious, particularly given their prior dynamic. This change cannot be entirely attributed to fan speculations. If they were simply friends, this misunderstanding could have been cleared up quickly and effectively with straightforward communication. Yet, the silence is deafening, and the avoidance suggests something deeper, something they feel they cannot or should not fully address. If they were only friends, the message could have been clearer. Yes, they don’t owe explanations to strangers on the internet, but we’ve seen them correcting narratives in real time (e.g., the Luke cake story), and we know they are aware of how we interpret things. Nicola is chronically online.

Another glaring inconsistency lies in how their supposed current relationships are handled publicly. Nicola, known for her privacy on personal matters, has seemingly, through some interpretations, gone public with her alleged boyfriend. This contrasts with Luke, who has historically been open about his romantic relationships, always acknowledging them publicly. Yet now, there is a notable reluctance on his part to confirm anything explicitly, even as speculation swirls. Nicola may have decided not to hide her relationships anymore, but why now? And why so soon into this supposed relationship? The bigger question is what she is really doing, or if it's just an interpretation of the situation. Luke may have decided to separate his private life from his professional one, perhaps because it had unwanted effects on his previous relationships. We could easily argue that this approach could be even more damaging to his reputation, fueling the "bad boyfriend" image, and to his supposed girlfriend, as she is, willingly or not, heavily scrutinized. Should it be like that? Of course not, but it is. So, this strategy seems counterproductive, ineffective, and poorly managed.

The contrast between their approaches raises further questions. Why would Luke suddenly shy away from acknowledging a relationship when he’s never had an issue doing so in the past? And why would Nicola, who has always remained quiet on such topics, choose this moment to break that pattern? These behaviors feel inconsistent and potentially performative.

The timeline of their supposed separations and Nicola newfound love also doesn’t add up. For two people who seemed to share a deep and genuine connection, it’s highly improbable that she could fall in love with another man just two months after the world tour. Yes, I believe the look in her eyes since Brazil was deep down bad love Yes, I believe the look in her June 15 Tatcha video was sad love eyes. Real emotions don’t dissipate that quickly, especially when they were as visible and vibrant as theirs. The way they looked at each other, the way they supported one another, and the energy they exuded when together painted the picture of a bond that doesn’t vanish overnight. It strains credulity to believe that both could have moved on so effortlessly in such a short span of time.

And then there’s the matter of trust. As fans, we trust Luke and Nicola. They’ve never given us a reason to believe they’re dishonest or manipulative. Their authenticity is what made their connection so compelling. Please stop with the "it's just PR" narrative. Yes, we know they are paid to lie while acting, but those two are not known liars. I believe they’ve been telling the truth all along, which is why their connection felt so natural and authentic. No amount of PR training could have produced those results, it was rooted in truth, as Golda Rosheuvel would say. PR campaigns don’t start years in advance, don’t include personal time, aren’t micromanaged behind the scenes, and certainly don’t appear in all cast and crew contracts. And I know that they are good actors but some reactions are too visceral to be fake.

This love is not a lie. That’s what makes this current situation so confounding. If they are truly in love with other people, why does so much about their behavior and timeline feel unnatural and inconsistent? There’s too much smoke here to believe there isn’t a fire. Their mutual elusiveness, the unexplained shift in their interactions, and the deliberate way chaos week unfolded all points to something more profound at play.

Ultimately, we know one thing for sure: Luke and Nicola share a unique love for each other. Their bond, whether romantic or not, is rare and undeniable. It is precisely because we trust them that we can’t reconcile the current narrative with what we know to be true. Their story, full of laughter, connection, and now mystery, deserves clarity. Until then, the dissonance remains, leaving us to wonder what lies beneath the surface of the chaos.

BEFORE THE CHAOS

Before June 12, they both seemed a little sad in Galway and London, which I initially attributed to exhaustion and the bittersweet emotions of the tour's end, closing that chapter. However, in retrospect, it might have been more than that. They may have already known they wouldn’t be able to stay as close as they were for some time.

Nicola sharing the song "Frames Your Face" before the end of the world tour

The song’s lyrics express themes of love, emotional vulnerability, and longing.

The lyrics of "Frames Your Face" speak to a longing to connect, to be seen clearly, and to have one's feelings acknowledged. Nicola might have been signaling that despite external noise, her emotions and connection to Luke remain strong. It could represent a desire to focus on what truly matters: the connection she shares with Luke.

“Give me that look again Give me that look 'Cause I'm gonna wait for you”

Luke sharing the clip with the line "Don't let her ruin our night" from the Bridgerton, where Luke’s character speaks to Nicola’s character about Cressida, can be interpreted in the context of the events following the "papgate", the line could metaphorically reflect Luke's desire to protect the bond between him and Nicola from external forces. The "ruin our night" aspect may symbolize a desire to maintain peace and happiness amid a chaotic situation Just as Cressida is a disruptive force in Bridgerton, there may be individuals or circumstances that Luke and Nicola are trying to resist. The line could signal their determination not to let external factors affect the genuine connection they share.

Overall, both the quote and the song suggest a desire for clarity, protection, and the maintenance of a strong bond despite external pressures. These elements in context further reinforce the notion that there may be much more going on beneath the surface, with both Nicola and Luke attempting to navigate their feelings amid the scrutiny they face.

Chaos Week recap

1-The French Toast

It was just a French toast but it could be more than that.

2-The Wordle Post: A Puzzle of Emotions (future reference the post Emmys post)

One of the first breadcrumbs in the intricate web of Nicola and Luke’s story might be Nicola’s Wordle post. At first glance, it seemed like an innocent nod to a daily word game, but upon closer examination, it unraveled layers of emotional symbolism.

"Aloud": The puzzle’s first word, "aloud," hinted at the unspoken truths in their connection. It suggested that certain feelings or realizations, perhaps Luke's internal struggles or his evolving feelings for Nicola, had yet to be fully articulated. Nicola’s intuitive grasp of the situation implied she was aware of his emotional turmoil long before it became apparent.

"Anvil": Symbolizing the emotional weight and something still being forged, this word represented Luke’s state of emotional limbo. It reflected his process of disentangling from his relationship with A while grappling with his bond with Nicola. The green and yellow letters subtly symbolized dynamics at play: Luke (yellow "L") being present but not yet in the right emotional place, and the public perception of his relationship with A (green A and L) still intact despite the reality of his growing distance.

Solving the puzzle in two guesses: Nicola’s ability to "solve" in two tries metaphorically illustrated her sharp understanding of their emotional dynamics. She saw through the layers quickly acknowledging the tension, unresolved feelings, and shifting allegiances beneath the surface.

3-A Subtle Declaration

Amid Luke’s public challenges, Nicola showcased her unwavering support through a heartfelt Instagram post. Sharing a behind-the-scenes moment from Bridgerton Season 3, she captioned it:

"I thought I’d already shared this, but I hadn’t, so here you go, now it’s all yours!"

Timing and Intent: The timing of this post coincided with negativity surrounding Luke, which made Nicola’s gesture seem purposeful. It wasn’t just about sharing a photo; it felt like a deliberate act of solidarity, subtly reminding everyone of the joy and warmth in their bond.

"Now it’s all yours": This phrase carried layered implications. On one level, it seemed directed at fans, a casual offering of content. On another, it could have been a message for Luke, a way of reaffirming her affection and loyalty amidst the turbulence. The deliberate ambiguity left room for interpretation, as if she was signaling something deeper while maintaining plausible deniability.

"The loveliest pal a gal could have": Her use of "pal" was affectionate yet strategic, downplaying romantic overtones while emphasizing the unique closeness of their bond. The phrasing, playful yet tender, left space for speculation, especially when paired with the subtle intimacy of a purple heart emoji.

4-Scrabble and Subtext: A Coded Message (A Layered Callout)

Nicola’s apparent love for word games resurfaced with a Scrabble board that seemed ordinary at first but, upon analysis, revealed a complex message seemingly directed at A.

Words like “DAD,” “LIED,” “DEAD,” “FATE,” and “FLED” hinted at themes of betrayal, endings, and inevitability. Together, they painted a picture of unresolved tensions and shifting dynamics.

The inclusion of “HEY A” and “WATCH” suggested a warning, perhaps to A, while words like “Hey A watch we chill”

“HUG” and “JET” hinted at comfort for Luke and the possibility of departure or change.

The board reflected Nicola’s nuanced way of addressing the situation, subtle, clever, and full of layers that only attentive followers might decode.

5-Birthday Tribute: A Masterclass in Friendship and a jab at Luke’s entourage (now deleted iyyk)

For her best friend Camilla’s birthday, Nicola posted a heartfelt message with a subtle yet pointed undertone:

"Happy Birthday @Camilla, I love you so much that I could never imagine my life without you!!! Remember the time paparazzi took a picture of us and to protect me you grabbed my face?"

A Subtle Contrast: This post seemed to highlight the true essence of friendship, protectiveness and loyalty in contrast to the betrayal Luke supposedly faced from some of his friends. It was a gentle reminder of what genuine support looks like, directed not just at Camilla but perhaps at those who had failed Luke.

6-You speak to me through Music

Nicola’s references to songs like Bless the Telephone and Juna seemed to reveal her inner emotional landscape:

Bless the Telephone: A soulful ode to connection, the lyrics about how a simple call can brighten one’s day mirrored the emotional highs and lows of their relationship. Nicola’s choice to highlight this song suggested a yearning for closeness, even amid challenges. The call of someone you are missing and haven’t seen or heard in a while, not someone you were just hanging with, or you’ll spend the next day with.

Juna: With its themes of vulnerability and gradual intimacy, Juna Nicola’s cautious yet hopeful approach to deepening her connection with someone points to Luke as the most likely candidate. Lines like "With you, there's no pretending" underscored the authenticity of their bond, while "Come to me ready" hinted at her desire for emotional readiness and mutual growth.

Nicola is chronically online, and she undoubtedly knew who they’d be associated with. If it wasn’t about Luke, why post them publicly? And why double down, knowing it would be misconstrued? Let’s not forget the triple down with “the very demure, very mindful.” Of course, the fandom would overanalyze, so why play the double entendre game? Please don’t argue that she isn’t, don’t underestimate her social media literacy!

her social media literacy!

While the exact nature of their relationship remains ambiguous, their mutual affection and understanding shine through. The chaos week suggests a steady ship navigating turbulent waters, one that holds the promise of a deeper connection as it moves toward the horizon. Yet, these days, the waters are murkier but calmer, making it difficult to discern what’s truly happening. For me, nothing feels definitive. I trust their love more than I trust what I can see. I choose to believe that whatever is unfolding, they will find their way back to each other. It may take time, but I’m here for it.

[luimagines]

Since requests are open... may we perhaps have the Chain with an SO who's really into astronomy and space? Just the biggest star and planet nerd to ever walk Hyrule.

(Totally not inspired by my own geeking out over how gorgeous the night sky is in TOTK, nope, not at all).

I'm going to have to do some research for this one. ^.^* But I'll do it for you, Nordic!!

Masterlist

Content under the cut!

The ship rocked softly back and forth on the seas, cradling the sleeping heroes as the moon gently draped the bedazzled sky with it's softer toned light.

Wind was still awake, as were you. Both of you were trying to keep the course of the ship on the right track.

Your lantern light was the closest thing you had for a light source to look at your maps and charts. You consider yourself lucky to have this on hand. Only Wind seemed as well versed in the stars as you were, hence the agreed upon decision to leave you both to your devices while everyone else went to sleep in the hammocks the small ship provided.

Wind was silent as he stood by the wheel.

You mapped out the course for the next island you were to make land, following your previous notes and comparing them to a map you had purchased before you had set sail.

A short sigh escaped your lips as you started to pack up. You couldn't keep doing this. Your eyes were strained and the moon made it difficult to see the needed stars for you figure out if you were going the right direction. You'll give it an hour or two- let the moon move further across the night sky and then start recharting what you needed.

"Going to bed?" Wind asked quietly.

You shook your head. "I'm tired, but I'm not going to leave you alone just yet."

An bitter chuckle tumbled from your lips as you stretched. Your spine and ribs popped and cracked from the needed release of strain. You saw Wind flinch but ignored it.

"If only it wasn't the full moon tonight. It would make this a lot easier."

"I can't even see the Farore Constellation." Wind sighed in despondent agreement. "I know these stars... but we're technically sailing over an island right now, so I doubt I'd actually be of much use as a navigator."

You snort. "That's why I'm up with you and not sleeping in the hull of the ship with the other guys."

There's no other sounds afterwards. There's a moment of stillness, save for the callings of the wind and the waves in their frequent call and response symphony.

"I've actually never been on a ship before." You admit, breaking the moment.

Wind jolts, almost as if he was startled awake. He tilts his head with a cheeky smile growing on his face. "Really? You're a natural at navigating. I never would have guessed."

That sets your frustrations at ease for a bit. You sit down against the railing, turning your body to talk to more experience sailor. "I just like looking at the stars for fun."

"Fun?" Wind gets a credulous look as he giggles. "I just knew the stories I was told as a kid. But I wouldn't say that comparing them to maps was fun."

"I know the stories too, sir and it's fun for me." You rolls your eyes playfully. "It just means we make a good team. I wouldn't be able to steer the ship for the life of me."

"You literally just turn the wheel left or right."

"I'd steer us right into a cliff face."

Wind giggles again.

"You actually know what you're doing but I actually know where we're going." You grin. "It works out."

"I guess so." Wind shrugs. "Better us than any of the others guys."

"They'd capsize the ship."

"Don't joke like that. Bad luck."

You smile. You don't necessarily believe in luck, but you've heard sailors to be the suspicious sort. You'll let him have this. "I retract my statement then. How far along are we following The Star of Demise?"

"About 15 knots, why?"

"Change coarse to sail towards Nayru's Trident." You grin. "We'll hit land fall by morning."

"Perfect."

[iamnmbr3]

I honestly hate that it's framed as The Wizards Are Hiding From The Muggles For Fear Of Persecution like. No.

'They're scared of magic' the magic you're using to kill and torture? The magic you're using for dominance of other sentient species?

Also. The Muggles don't know they're there. The wizards make sure of that.

Yeah.... Honestly the whole Statue of Secrecy is just weird because wizards are so much more powerful than muggles. The explanation that Hagrid gives to Harry about why wizards are in hiding sounds like JKR didn't think her world building through very well propaganda made up to conceal the truth.

Wizard supremacist ideas are pretty common, even among people who aren't as extreme as Lucius Malfoy. And remember, that until the end of book 5 even Lucius was an extremely influential and well respected member of wizarding society. Yes, he kept some of his most violent ideas to himself, but very obviously he was able to openly voice a lot of what he believed and influence policy without significant backlash. Instead, it's people like Arthur Weasley who are looked down for being weird because they like muggles too much (and even Arthur doesn't truly see muggles as equals).

So given all of that it strains credulity that someone like Lucius wouldn't have been all 'you know what? let's just enslave the muggles.' This leads me to suspect that some muggles must have developed ways to fight wizards. Maybe they allied with other magical creatures or developed tech or got ahold of magical artifacts like the cursed necklace from book 6 that you can use to kill a magic user even if you don't have magic yourself. Perhaps muggleborns who sided with their muggle heritage were even the source of some of these means of fighting wizards, hence the fear and distrust of muggleborns among pureblood supremacists. I mean, using the same principals as the opal necklace, Hermione could probably make a gun with cursed bullets that a muggle could use to kill a wizard, if she wanted to.

This, combined with the fact that there are a LOT of muggles, could be the real reason that wizards exist in hiding and covertly influence the muggle world and make sure to wipe everyone's memories. I mean, they clearly have contact with muggle governments. I doubt Fudge is reporting the British Prime Minister out of the goodness of his heart because he cares about Muggles so much. There could well be a treaty of some sort. Yeah the Prime Minister doesn't know anything about it when Fudge shows up, but that's probably because his staff figured he'd be more receptive to the 'so magic is real actually' intelligence briefing AFTER meeting fudge.

The fact that wizards go to such lengths to conceal their presence and wipe people's memories suggest they are worried about what will happen if they get caught. Wizards are able to use their powers to maintain dominance by hiding their presence and influence and making sure that most people remain ignorant of their activities, since if they openly tried to just enslave everyone or openly went around treating muggles like animals, everyone would be able to band together and stop them...kind of like a less evil version of Russia now I think of it.

So yeah. They're in hiding not because muggles persecute them but because they want to get away with persecuting muggles.

[deadpresidents]

James K. Polk was rare among Presidents in that he didn't just inherit slaves. Polk, like [Andrew] Jackson, actively -- but secretly -- bought slaves while President. Unlike Jackson, however, Polk didn't buy them in Washington, D.C., but secretly back down south. Why the secrecy? Because during his career, Polk straddled the lines between slaveholders and abolitionists, never completely joining either side. Polk was already a major slave owner when he became President but was very cautious about letting people know about his ownership of other people. Perhaps he was afraid of the American people -- especially abolitionists -- finding out that he was buying children. "Of the nineteen slaves Polk bought during his Presidency, one was ten years old, two were eleven, two were twelve, two were thirteen, two were fifteen, two were sixteen, and two were seventeen," said William Dusinberre, author of the great Slavemaster President: The Double Career of James Polk (BOOK | KINDLE). "Each of these children was bought apart from his or her parents and from every sibling. One or two of these children may possibly have been orphans, but it would strain credulity to suggest many of them were." So Polk, who needed more labor for his plantation, did what most rich politicians would do in his situation: he found a way to increase his personal wealth without his constituents finding out about it. He set up agents to buy the slaves in their names and then transferred them to his possession at home... ...He even made sure he had plausible deniability. Dusinberre noted that Polk -- living in a pre-Civil War America -- made sure that while he bought slaves in the White House, he never used his Presidential salary. "He used his savings from his salary to pay campaign debts, to buy and refurbish a mansion in Nashville, and to buy U.S. Treasury certificates, but never to buy slaves," Dusinberre said. "Evidently he distinguished (between) his private income -- from the plantation --(and) the public salary he received from government revenues. Thus, if the public had ever learned of his buying young slaves, he could always have truthfully denied that he had spent his Presidential salary for that purpose. Polk may have been careful about how he bought his slaves because he knew slavery was an evil institution. But Polk kept his slaves throughout his life and didn't even free them upon death, leaving that for his wife.

-- A closer look at the extent of President James K. Polk's record as a slave owner while he was in the White House, including a troubling tendency towards buying children and separating them from their families.

This excerpt is from Jesse J. Holland's excellent and very revealing book, The Invisibles: The Untold Story of African American Slaves in the White House (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO).

[bonaesperanza]

I'm rereading the Lymond Chronicles right now and, as a lover of twisty, strategic bastards, I have to say that Dunnett understands things about how to write them properly that few others do. Everything that happens in these books lands in a very heavy, physical way - like, you can almost feel the physical thunk as events land, whereas most other twisty bastards books feel like floaty CGI whose physicality you're never really fully buying, fun as the special effects are.

So I tried to do a little analysis as to why, because I live for a twisty strategic bastard narrative :)

Lymond has a personality and is driven by his emotions, despite his cleverness and chessmaster tendencies - he doesn't do everything out of strategic consideration, and you can clearly see his fault lines from the start - glimpses of suppressed emotion, flaws that may be his undoing, irrational choices that clearly fulfill a psychological purpose but not a strategic one. Everyone is allowed to be pathetic and annoying and unlikeable. And all this is allowed to shape the plot - sometimes the character will be allowed emotions and a personality but not where it impacts the plot, so you will get a sort of a parallel lines thing where there's an "emotion" plot where the character is perhaps allowed to be flawed and show off their personality, and which perhaps impacts their interpersonal relationships, and a "competence" plot where the character always performs near-flawlessly and their emotions never enter into the game, and never the twain shall meet. No matter how controlled and self-possessed someone is, it strains my credulity when a person is portrayed as someone in possession of major personal flaws or psychological anguish, and yet this is never allowed to spill over into the way they interact with the "competence" plot or derail them in any way. Especially if they are portrayed as someone suppressing everything for efficiency's sake - they are going to crack at some point, and the stitches are going to burst open like a shaken bottle of soda with innards flying everywhere and hitting everyone around them, and if they're not, you're clearly not putting your character under enough pressure. Which makes for a boring story. The fact that Lymond is 100% human 100% of the time actually makes him look more competent and impressive, not less.

He is allowed to fail, because flaws are human and failure is human. The more convoluted a plan the more possible points of failure it has, and this is especially the case if large chunks of it rely on understanding and manipulating human beings: humans are messy complex dynamic systems, like the weather, and are therefore difficult if not impossible to predict to that degree of granularity. Lymond is allowed to misjudge Scott, for example, he is allowed to have his convoluted plans go wrong, and this is allowed to derail him: sometimes he bounces back, yes, but he is not constantly failing upwards, and his failures do have unfixable consequences sometimes. If they never did, the narrative would become boring and void of tension and emotion. The fact that the difficulty of pulling off these plans is realistically portrayed through the inclusion of stochasticity makes me admire his capacity to pull them off as often as he does more and not less.

He is allowed to fail in a way that's his own fault - combining my previous two points, it's not always that circumstances have conspired in such a way that he couldn't possibly predict or influence it; his failures are often a consequence of his own flaws and his own psychological hangups and blind spots, and are therefore all the more pleasing to read about because they tie into the emotional and personal narrative of the books. (Though I do also love the narratives where the brilliant hero does everything right and yet is trapped in a set of shifting wider historical circumstances where whatever he does is doomed to fail eventually, like Bel Riose from the Foundation books or even Thrawn.)

Another important point is when he's allowed to fail - I read somewhere that a deux ex machina or a similar contrivance that kick starts the plot is more tolerable and less suspension of disbelief-breaking than one which resolves it at the climax, and I think that it's kind of the opposite with failures of twisty bastards? So many people writing them seem to adore the competence porn too much to let them fail at crucial moments - if they do fail, even if it checks all my previous points, it's at the beginning, so that they are then allowed to use their cleverness twist out of the situation - see Eugenides in Return of the Thief, whose stubbornness and jealousy loses him the support of his foreign allies, but who then manages to pull through despite it (and is then vindicated by them never having had the intention to help in the first place due to realpolitik considerations). Or Miles Vorkosigan in Memory - he has a lapse of judgement at the start, but he makes no further lapses of judgement, and even his emotional journey of depression and reexamining of his life (the series' high point of characterization complexity tbh) has absolutely no bearing on his efficient functioning within the plot itself.

Which brings me to, consider also the role that this failure has in the narrative - because unless you're writing something that's just hardcore sociological storytelling (again, like the Foundation), this is a story about individuals, and a climax with personal stakes is almost always more satisfying than a more impersonal one where the hero gets to show off his cleverness. When Lymond fails in The Game of Kings, it swerves the plot from a very mechanistic, spy-novel-esque intrigue of finding the right man and clearing his name, to a psychodrama that forces him to confront his brother and face his past emotionally, and that also airs all of Lymond's flaws and misconceptions and pent-up emotions, but also all of Richard's, because this is the driving force of the narrative and it's so much more satisfying to watch it unfold than it would have been to watch Lymond bounce back and execute everything with flawless mechanical accuracy. Compare this to the climaxes of most new canon Thrawn books, or most Vorkosigan books (the one big exception is Brother in Arms - actually the more Mark the book has, the likelier it is to have an emotion-driven denouement), or all of the Inda books, or all of the Gentleman Bastards books - at best they will put a loved one in danger or kill them off to generate personal stakes, but what does Thrawn's personality, for example, have to do with the resolution of the plot in his books? I love those books, but they don't land nearly as hard. Compare and contrast Tyrion's trial in ASOIAF - Tyrion is also a twisty bastard but the process of him defending himself and running away doesn't involve his wits - it involves confronting his father and brother, about whom he has massive emotional baggage.

Anyway the TL;DR is you should all read the Lymond Chronicles.

[wetcatspellcaster]

For the ask - I really just want to copy and paste the entirety of the interrogation scene but since I can’t this bit really sticks out to me:

“She paused, then added, “but on the other hand, the cruellest you ever got before Ascending was when we fought over Cazador and then… well… you kind of did it, didn’t you? I basically lost that argument. If that’s what we fought about before, and then it just happened, it wasn’t like we could make up.”

Astarion was still watching her. Gods, she needed to make sure she was saying the right thing.

“And you were the one who was always telling me to be less selfless,” Rose offered, as a last resort. “And well, you know, staying with you just to be yelled at and degraded is perhaps the most selfless thing I could do, but you used to never want that from me. It used to annoy you, more than anything. I don’t know, I thought I was honouring you in a way… well, you know, not you. The lessons you taught me. Before-”

“Before I changed,” he said, a dangerous note in his voice. “The other me.”

“Um... just to check, do you prefer to think of yourself as two separate people, or is that actually the case, metaphysically?” Rosalie said nervously. As he glared at her, she clarified: “it would be useful to know, more generally, but mostly I’m asking because I just want to make sure you’re not upset, or if I’m being unfair to you. I don’t want to hold you to standards that you’re simply not capable of reaching.”

“I don’t want to talk about this anymore,” he said with a wave of his hand.

Thank you for wanting to play the ask game! :) x

So, it's one of the only pieces of drama (except for... *gestures at the general trauma congaline that is Act 3*) in An Honest Lie so I won't go into laborious detail, but Rosalie was obviously horrified that Astarion ever wanted to appropriate the Black Mass in the first place. Even the death of his siblings is too much for her (given that she values family, but also wants him to have some kind of a family survive in tact). When Astarion argues that none of the spawn or his siblings are worth saving as they all have blood on their hand, she just assumes he's also talking about himself.

In the 'canon' playthrough fic (or in the fic, someday soon), she actually gives Astarion the silent treatment over this conversation, which is how you know shit has gotten real lmfao. So writing the timeline where she lost that argument has been amusing to say the least. We'll see how that argument unfolds in real time in the other story ;)

Writing a charmed pov was super interesting because of the parameters of the vampiric charmed spell. The exact text was: The charmed target regards the vampire as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected. Although the target isn't under the vampire's control, it takes the vampire's requests or actions in the most favorable way it can - this means that at certain points, where the real Rosalie would've just left the room, she had to search for a favourable take on the situation, even if (given the circumstances) it occasionally strains her credulity and her ability to censor herself, meaning she does let a couple of bitchy things sneak through.

In the case of the section quoted here, Rosalie is just trying to appease Astarion however she can, but the 'trusted friend to be heeded and protected' also influences the conversation. She cannot find anything to heed in the current Astarion's words, so she reaches into the past, to the times he complained about her being selfish, and argues she's heeding those instead. That is the version of him that was a trusted friend, so that's what comes most easily to the fore of her mind.

"“it would be useful to know, more generally, but mostly I’m asking because I just want to make sure you’re not upset, or if I’m being unfair to you." - Rosalie, when charmed, is genuinely trying not to hurt Astarion if she can help it, and that's why she asks if he's not the same person he was before. The intellectual part of her - the part that frees her from the charm eventually - is fishing for information (absolutely it is!) but her guilt about 'making' Astarion this way and then punishing him for it is also absolutely real.

As to why Astarion cuts her off and in response to whether Astarion is metaphysically two different people before and after the Mass - [REDACTED]

DVD commentary ask

[superman86to99]

Superman #89 (May 1994)

Superman's in space again... again! This time, because he's getting so big that pretty soon he won't even fit on Earth. Last issue, we left the increasingly grotesque Super-Superman strapped to a giant rocket that was taking him to a space station where Dr. Anthony "Big Words" Rodriguez of Project Cadmus is supposed to cure the condition that's turning him into The Hulk But With More Clothes. In this issue we find out that Superman has improbably gotten even bigger. The only thing of his that has shrunk seems to be his vocabulary.

Dr. Rodriguez' idea is to ask Superman to shoot his heat vision into a somewhat “Weapon X”-looking helmet that will safely channel his excess energy into space. Seven hours later, Superman's heat vision is still going, but he STILL looks like a caveman doing Superman cosplay. Eventually, the helmet gives out and Superman's ultra-potent heat vision destroys the entire space station. (Why, it's so potent, it even seems to be coming out of his mouth and chin!)

Superman has to figure out how to save Dr. Rodriguez from the vacuum of space despite the fact that 1) he can't see (he had to wrap some metal around his eyes like a bandana to stop the heat vision), 2) they can’t hear each other, and 3) Superman can't even touch the guy without crushing every bone in his body. Eventually, Big Words manages to grab onto Superman's cape and hop on top of him like a big space horsey. Then, Superman has to manage to fly back into Earth's atmosphere without turning Dr. Rodriguez into a flaming skeleton. I'd say that Superman was able to do this by extending his special "aura" so it protected Big Words too, but we all know the real explanation for this scene is "it’s comics, shut up."

Once the two have safely landed on Metropolis' bay, there's the small matter of the big, burning space station tumbling down towards Metropolis. That's where Superman's ultra-potent eye lasers finally come in handy, since they allow him to pulverize the whole station with one blast. Hooray! The only problem is that he's still huge and clumsy, and this storyline didn't really progress beyond making him a little bit huge-er. CONTINUED!

Plotline-Watch:

We get a brief update on Lex Luthor Jr.'s health, and it just hit me (almost 30 years after first reading these issues) that his storyline is the complete opposite of Superman's: while Supes gets bigger and stronger, Lex is basically shrinking down and looks like he’ll probably disappear into his Professor X hover chair any second now. I like that, despite the deadly clone virus ravaging his body and the fact that he's at war with a powerful government organization, none of that worries him as much as a pesky reporter snooping into his business...

Speaking of which, we find out that Lex has used his hacking abilities to plant ANOTHER wacky headline into the Daily Planet under Lois Lane's byline, although this one is a little more believable than the alien lovechild one: "LEX LUTHOR II IS REALLY ELVIS PRESLEY". On top of that, he also framed her for embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Planet. As a result, publisher Franklin "Frankenstern" Stern forces Perry White to fire Lois. This is a bit of a "You shouldn't have signed it" moment for Lois, as she realizes Lex MUST be behind her misfortunes and she has to "get him" before he gets her.

Regarding this storyline, Don Sparrow says: “Jurgens is generally the most frequent user of the Daily Planet’s articles as a story element, and the results are usually mixed (I remember Perry’s editorial about generosity at Christmastime way back in Adventures #462 being a particularly unrealistically maudlin piece of journalism—though nowhere near as awful as the “articles” in the Joe Kelly/Joe Casey era—the last page of Action #780 being perhaps the very worst it got) but the idea that a newspaper would go to print with obviously fake, wacky headlines twice really strains credulity, even in a comic book about a solar powered god in a cape. One time, mayyyyyybe, but after that, you can guarantee that the editors and publishers would be all over the printing process for the next issue. I quibble, I know, but it sticks out (as does the idea that Lois Lane would somehow suddenly have access or ability to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars). Also, if Lois really had embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars, it would be a matter for the police, not merely HR.” I agree that having TWO wacky headlines slip in is completely unrealistic... but they’re pretty funny, so I’ll give them a pass.

Perry seems to be taking Lois' firing even harder than her. He points out that he's known her since she was a girl, which is true, as we found out during the World of Metropolis miniseries. In fact, he's so distraught over having to fire someone who's "like a daughter" to him that he doesn't even seem to notice the space station blowing up right behind him! Then again, this is Metropolis; they probably see a giant explosion go off in the middle of the city about two or three times a day.

Patreon-Watch:

Fun fact: This post was started on a stolen computer! (As in, one that has since been stolen from me, not one I stole myself.) The main reason I’m getting off my butt and retyping/finishing it now is because we promised monthly posts to our awesome patrons, Aaron, Chris “Ace” Hendrix, britneyspearsatemyshorts, Patrick D. Ryall, Bheki Latha, Mark Syp, Ryan Bush, Raphael Fischer, Kit, Sam, and Bol, who read half of this at the end of May over at https://www.patreon.com/superman86to99. If it wasn’t for our patrons we’d probably still be at “Reign of the Supermen,” so shout out to them!

And now: more from the also awesome Don Sparrow, after the jump:

Art-Watch (by @donsparrow​):

Another caveman Superman cover, enhanced by some nice rim lighting.  It’s interesting that the generally wavy/curly Superman/Fabio hair has become limp and straight for the more Neanderthal Superman.  The brush spatter stars here are well done, but the space junk looks a little rushed to me.  Kudos for the off-centre UPC, which adds to the chaotic feel of this upside-down cover.

Inside we get another look at the dying clone body of Lex Luthor II, notably completely hairless, which is quite a switch for this lion of a man. This scene gives way to a two page spread of our hulking Superman, which is a transformation, even over the last issue.

Super-Caveman’s eyes are completely white for much of the story, adding to the inhuman feeling established by the oversized body, and pea-sized head.  I do have some logistical questions about how Superman’s belt and belt-buckle appear to be stretching proportionately with his body, but—it’s comics—so I shouldn’t probe too deeply.  The tiny fingernails are a nice touch, that help indicate this massive growth was sudden.

A little later into the story, Franklin Stern is well-drawn, though I miss the days when artists would hand-draw headlines—this computer text has some perspective issues.  The conflict on Perry’s face as Stern demands Lois be terminated is well drawn (even if it would be glaringly obvious to an old journo like Perry that Lois is being framed, but more on that later).

The double page spread as Superman’s heat vision overwhelms the Newsboy Legion’s collection gadget is appropriately explosive.  I particularly like the use of grease pencil on the outline of Superman’s heat vision. Though perhaps the dialogue on that page sends something of a mixed message.

Lastly, the bleak, blank expression on Perry as he fires Lois is well-done, though I perhaps might have expected a little more emotion on her face in reaction to the news.  

STRAY OBSERVATIONS:

The super-team is dangerously close to risking the ire of the notoriously litigious Disney corporation on the credits page, where three overlapping planets create a distinctive silhouette.  

I feel like the Elvis Presley connection of the headline is something of a nod to the King-obsessed Perry White on the then-currently-airing Lois and Clark TV show. [Max: I’ve always felt like it was a callback to that issue they did with all the Elvis-like sightings for the recently “dead” Lex Luthor Sr., Action #668, but it could be both things.]

I absolutely love the character consistency that when a space station suddenly explodes, and he is thrust into the vacuum of space instantaneously, Big Words still takes the time to say “An irreparable breech in the hull?  I am at a loss for words.” Classic. It must be both fun and challenging for the writer to come up with improbably tangled ways of saying simple things throughout the story.

[spurious]

Ink and Wings

McShep, rated E, ~2.7k

It's simply not possible.

This is what Rodney tells himself for two and a half days after he sees what he thinks is a butterfly tattoo on Major John Sheppard's thigh.

They'd been sharing a tent off-world, and Rodney'd thought Sheppard was already done changing when he barged in, pushing the flap aside and in the middle of a complaint about the humidity when he saw it: just a flash as Sheppard pulled up his sweats, the curvature of a wing stretched out over a hairy, muscular thigh.

But, surely, Rodney was mistaken. John Sheppard, United States Air Force Major John Sheppard, cannot possibly have the kind of tattoo gotten mainly by drunk sorority girls.

It was a trick of the light, a hallucination brought on by hypoglycemia, certainly not reality.

For one thing, Sheppard's upper thighs, a part of his body Rodney's never once seen uncovered, should not be just as perfectly golden-tan as the rest of him—unless, a hysterical, terrifyingly vivid part of Rodney's imagination supplies, he's regularly sunbathing out on a balcony somewhere, stretched out gloriously nude on one of those soft-woven Athosian mats; but this too is simply not possible, strains credulity even further than the tattoo, which Rodney has already determined had been a figment of his imagination.

His second theory regarding the tattoo is that perhaps it does exist, but is something significantly more masculine than the delicate, colorful butterfly Rodney thought he saw. Perhaps a fighter jet, or a sexily-posed woman, or…some other masculine tattoo design Rodney isn't privy to. The fighter jet theory in particular has merit: the wings could be shaped in a way that, in the low light, looked enough like a butterfly to trick Rodney's eye.

That, of course, leads Rodney to several days of endless wondering about what it really is, staring aimlessly at Sheppard's thigh, imagining the secret hidden underneath the straps of his holster, the thick canvas of his BDUs.

It starts to keep Rodney up at night, which is really just unacceptable: he has enough real reasons to get no sleep, so something like this making him toss and turn for hours is, frankly, a danger to the mission, which is something he's certain that Sheppard would want to solve, if he knew.

Or, at least, that's what Rodney tells himself when he's knocking on Sheppard's door at three in the morning after another sleepless night.

(read on AO3)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

--

--

[THREAD]

The most perfect (and almost unbelievable) metaphor for affirmative action: The lives of Allan Bakke (a white guy who challenged racial quotas at UC Davis) and Patrick Chavis (a black guy admitted to UC Davis under affirmative action the year Bakke was rejected). 

After Bakke won his SCOTUS case in 1978 (which ended the use of *overt* racial quotas in university admissions), he finally was accepted at UC Davis medical school. He graduated and eventually began practicing medicine. He kept a low profile, and didn't give interviews. 

Years later, the NY Times, still stinging from Bakke's victory, published a long and glowing account of a “thriving” black UC Davis medical school graduate named Patrick Chavis, noting how he had benefited from the school's old affirmative action quota system. 

Dr. Chavis' story was also featured on TV programs, and senator Ted Kennedy called him a “perfect example” of affirmative action. It was even suggested that Dr. Chavis had achieved more than Dr. Bakke, who graduated a few years after Chavis at UC-Davis. 

State Senator Tom (“Mr. Jane Fonda”) Hayden asked his fellow Californians: “Who made the most of his medical school education? From whom did California taxpayers benefit more?"

Here's Dr. Chavis. He seems nice, doesn't he?

But Dr. Chavis wasn't nice — he was a terrible and spectacularly incompetent doctor, and perhaps, if this is possible, an even worse human being. If the fawning reporter for the Times had done his job and just asked around a little, he would have gotten an earful. 

At the very least, the reporter might have at least been bothered to go down to the court house and dig up records that showed that Dr. Chavis had been sued for malpractice twenty-one times, and had paid settlements on some of those suits. 

But when the NYT has a thesis as important as this one, it usually doesn't want to be hobbled by contradicting evidence or cognitive dissonance. 

Highlights from Dr. Chavis' storied medical career included botched operations at his clinic which killed patients and left others in permanent pain, and — this is rather striking — hiding a patient in his home for two days after she nearly bled to death at his clinic. 

Dr. Chavis' incompetence and disregard for human life finally caught up with him in 1997 when a patient bled to death after he performed a “fly-by-night liposuction” on her and then “disappeared.”

Patients later said they were afraid to report him because of his celebrity. 

With an obviously dead patient and a conspicuously missing doctor on their hands, the California Medical Board California finally acted. Later, that same year, they revoked Dr. Chavis' license. 

In their decision, it cited the doctor's "inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician" and his "poor impulse control and insensitivity to patients' pain."

Special weight was given to that last item. 

A tape recording surfaced of Dr. Chavis chanting "liar, liar, pants on fire” at his patients while they screamed in agony — an extremely idiosyncratic way, to say the least, of soothing them and expressing disbelief at their claims of excruciating pain. 

All told, the California Medical Board brought 90 counts of misconduct and “gross negligence” — probably fair to say a bludgeoning of the Hippocratic Oath — against “the perfect example” of affirmative action. 

If you're finding any of this a little hard to believe, well, I can't say I blame you — it *does*strain credulity.

But wait, it actually gets weirder — PREDICTABLY weirder.

Because, you know, racism. 

That's right, the truly lousy doctor and even lousier human being, now-just-plain-Mr. Patrick Chavis, reached into his back pocket and pulled out the race card, blaming his bad fortune on a particularly virulent strain of structural oppression — “white envy.” 

That sounds interesting. Maybe something the NY Times might want to investigate?

You'd think so, but no — this time the suspiciously silent Times didn't feel it necessary to send a reporter to Cali to capture the thoughts and feelings of its former cover boy. 

So whatever happened to Allan Bakke? Dr. Bakke is retired, finishing his career the way he started it, quietly and with integrity — as an anaesthesiologist at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic. 

Postscript: Patrick Chavis was murdered by carjackers on the streets of Hawthorne, California in 2002, at the age of fifty. He had gone out for an ice cream cone. 

Bakke decision legacy: Very little changed in the UC system. It continues to quietly practice (and quietly celebrate) institutional racism against whites and (especially) Asians.

Just ask the Korean kid who got a 1530 SAT and didn't get in, and the Hispanic with a 960, who did. 

An excellent article (which mentions the above example of the rejected Korean-American applicant) about the persistence of racial preferences in admissions at universities in the UC system .

[ithisatanytime]

Bloodveil / Stillborn

the wigger problem of human sexuality. first we must accept that people are born gay, and its not their environment or the media that makes them that way and its always been that way but religion made people who “naturally” would be gay act straight. and THEN we must also accept that some people, well find out just how many were in fact naturally the other sex all along, and the media also has nothing to do with this, they were always around this many in hiding since the time of rome, all this we can swallow, but when some white boy comes up “no cap patnah i was raized from da streets, but this jus how i be” it starts to strain credulity in a way that leftist minded people dont feel ready to rush to authenticate as another possible “natural” perhaps genetic prediliction. i dont care if you are gay or trans or black or ugly or fat or retarded

[urbaneturtle]

DCAU Rewatch: BTAS 6 The Underdwellers

A rash of petty crime perpetrated by children leads Batman into a clash underground when he encounters a man who fashions himself as The Sewer King.

Story by Tom Ruegger

Teleplay by J. Dennis & R. Mueller

Directed by Frank Paur

Supervising Composer Shirley Walker

Music Composed by Stu Balcomb and Lars Cutterham

Animation Services by Studio Junio

I’ve always had a soft spot for this episode. There are elements of it that strain credulity, but the concept of Batman liberating a group of orphaned children works for me thematically and this is one I have particularly vivid childhood memories of.

This is the first time I feel like the dialogue and attempts at humor in this series really work. The banter between Alfred and Bruce where Alfred encourages him to take a vacation is very funny and completely in character.

ALFRED: I do believe a break from Wayne Enterprises and crime fighting would do wonders. Perhaps a vacation? Golf?

BRUCE: Sounds boring.

ALFRED: In the Bahamas?

BRUCE: Hot and boring.

There’s a little bit of self-deprecation in the way Bruce responds, but also complete truth in it. He needs to remain busy. Boredom is too dangerous a concept for his brooding nature. Alfred trying to deal with the kid from the sewers, is full of great visual gags. All of the stuff with the boy in the mansion is great and helps round out Batman and Alfred both. It reminds us that this guy is not merely an avenging demon of the night. He cares deeply about the people he is trying to protect.

Sewer King himself is more pathetic than threatening. (Bruce Timm admitted the original script involved more overt abuse than primarily his ranting, but I think his physical cruelty is pretty well implied and I can do without it more visualized). His screaming and raving paints him as a petty little man. I do like that, though. A guy who collects and enslaves orphaned children and manipulates them into thinking they are unloved and unwanted is as pathetic as he is evil. He can’t exert power over anyone with power and so he takes out his cruel fantasies on the helpless. Someone who takes advantage of orphaned and abandoned children is a natural enemy for a man like Batman who is dedicated to protecting the innocent (and repeatedly takes in wayward children of his own).

READ THE FULL ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ON PATREON

[filmclingon]

We saw Tom Stoppard's "Leopoldstadt" on Broadway last night. We hadn't rushed to see this, but discounted tickets made it irresistible. At this point I am increasingly reluctant to see or read more on the Shoah, due as much to arrogance that I've already "seen it all" (impossible) as to an aversion with age to borderline torture porn. Previously, the exhibition "Auschwitz: Not Long Ago, Not Far Away" dissolved that reluctance: Our planned one-hour breeze-through became a three-hour endless revelation. But I am sorry to report that, while I am glad we saw it, I'm afraid Stoppard's play was a disappointment, more derivative pastiche than epiphany. I knew it was part biographical, which is also problematic: In the words of Mr. Popescu in Carol Reed's "The Third Man" (its Orson Welles given an almost sneering aside at one point in Stoppard's text): "A dangerous thing, mixing fact and fiction." I was also reminded of Elie Wiesel's criticism of the 1977 television series "Holocaust": Too many different Holocaust horrors happened to this fictional family, straining credulity and providing a boon to revisionists and deniers. Not that fiction is such a bad thing: I recommend highly the fantastic but harrowing and almost forgotten film "Sunshine" (1999) featuring a spectacular cast including Ralph Fiennes, Jennifer Ehle, Rachel Weisz, William Hurt, about three generations of a privileged Hungarian Jewish family. But I felt that the audience would be better off with true accounts, details of which almost seem to have been cherry-picked for inclusion in this play: The sweep of Edmund de Waal's "Hare with Amber Eyes"; the recent TCM documentary on Hollywood composer Max Steiner; another documentary featuring musician Billy Joel and his Viennese half brother about the Nazi theft of their family business; the story of Adele Bloch Bauer, subject of both a famous Klimt painting and the 2015 film "Woman in Gold." Beyond all that, and strictly from a dramaturgic point of view: Too long (two hours ten minutes) to have no intermission (esp. because I believe the script could have been tightened by a quarter hour), and too many characters with too little delineation. Great that the excellent scrim-projected photos throughout the play included a rough-drawn family tree; but at play's end, I was left to scramble mentally who was who. It would have been incredibly effective (if no doubt emotionally manipulative) to have a spotlight shone -- or a briefly held lamp passed, lit, extinguished -- one by one or two by two, on/by the actors portraying the family members whose grim fates are intoned by Rosa ("...Verdun...Auschwitz...Auschwitz...Auschwitz..."). The other issue was enunciation: So many semi-comprehensible posh accents -- not "foreign," all English -- that lines were missed. I had to tell my companion after the fact that both his parents' home towns of Lvov and Czernowitz had been mentioned. And would it have killed Stoppard to translate at least once "le gout juif," said several times at one point and sounding rather silly? There was also an Oskar Schindler crying moment toward the end by the character obviously modeled in Stoppard himself: Can't we please avoid all such lachrymose histrionics in future? Finally, Stoppard has textile magnate Hermann speak of making a suit out of nettles, has the nursemaid tell the Grimm fairy tale of the Six Swan prince brothers (Hans Andersen's version has seven) whose sister makes them shirts out of nettles: I would have liked more connection of those almost throwaway bits of script. Being innumerate and musically untalented, I bow to Stoppard's knowledge of the linked arts of music and mathematics -- although I do know about the Riemann Hypothesis, alleged proofs for which continue to come up in the news but which, as of this writing, are unsubstantiated. That might have been an interesting coda, perhaps a meditation on man's enduring ambition to achieve what may be impossible.

[writer59january13]

Ashen faced Prometheus aghast at inferno gone awry

Whether arsonist at fault or confluence of ripe conditions triggering perfect firestorm, the titan of fire beside himself with misery, though no fault of his own the raging bullish conflagration a taste of inescapable hell synonymous with the outer limits of the twilight zone, where mercurial Venusians ply their devil may care attitude with pitchforks stabbing the sheltering sky mortifying for those residents (even firm believers in a loving divine presence), especially those individuals now living asocial in the ruins amidst (in oh my gosh) once posh Los Angeles neighborhoods! Though a skeptic at heart, I cannot help but wonder “What Hath God Wrought which text first, original phrase

that Samuel Morse typed

in his newly invented

single-wire telegraph in the 1930. Faith no more does severely test (and strain the limits of credulity) regarding doubting Thomas paradigm

positing the question

(for those who do believe) why whims oven omniscient deity,

would unleash unrelenting punishment

poorly justifying the pithy remark

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God purportedly flourish aplenty within the human league, particularly where ultra rich banded together and (possibly because of obeisance to their wealth) therefore fixation to acquire trappings of splendour must be forced to atone

for their collective miscreants

and become like the indigent no matter that wealth justifiably earned

saith those now rendered destitute, and reduced to panhandle.

Fat or slim chance, but just maybe more attention will be paid

to those accursed with a lifetime

of misery and hardship,

thru no fault of their own.

Impossible mission to create Utopia if only because each person endowed

with inherent abilities and/or being gifted

housing latent advantageous qualities of body, mind, or spirit, (whether identified at an early age, or discovered visa vis later in life) allowing, enabling, and providing them

better yet, perhaps hypothetical person born that way as a polymath (or a poker face, yet get smart to play dumb), but nevertheless exploit innate mental, physical or spiritual endowments with honest to goodness sweat of brow modus operandi to experience successfully

(what envious others may chide

as them living the life of Riley)

comfortably numb judged as free and clear lifestyle against deprivations with difficulty, yet without deliberateness flaunting obvious plentitude,

perhaps erring by hosting gala events paying deference towards billionaires

all the while downplaying amassing trophies of capitalism

but never missing a beat to accentuate compulsion toward keeping up with the Joneses for all the webbed wide world to see

oozing pretentiousness grafted upon struggling origin as humble and poor member of bourgeoisie economic strata.

Impossible mission for full fledged capitulation of monied class subsequently as faux proletariat, would be laughable drama considering those capital assets went up in smoke (understandable and definitely hard hit would be victims without homeowners insurance), and lacking that secret stash of money hidden under a mattress or deep underground beneath generations old palm tree

but the luckier ones could access offshore accounts no doubt bulging with available super duper funds. Upon glancing at the headlines I espied an unusual communiqué

crediting Poseidon with helping ease

the lack of adequate water substantiated by Department of Water and Power acknowledged that Pacific Palisades reservoir offline

closed for structural repairs, plus confirmation that by 3 a.m. Wednesday January 9th, 2025 (of course) all three tanks, (which hold one million gallons each) went dry.

Out of the blue and into the black of darkened skies

courtesy explosion from incendiary material

an immense humongous cloud saturated a bajillion percent with moisture (spanning across the entire horizon from all points of the compass

north, south, east, and west) Poseidon came forth to the rescue not quite in the nick of time, nevertheless a heavy downpour, (a record amount of rain deluged the area) larger than the size of Rhode Island immediately pooling into waist then tens of feet of high water within minutes, where analogous to a Biblical flood, thus you can bet your bottom dollar aforementioned statement originated from a reliable source.

Matthew Scott Harris could not contacted for further questioning hence sometimes we need to believe in a higher power!

[mariacallous]

Applying for a new job is always a venture into the unknown, but when it comes to the pay on offer, that uncertainty is lessening. Salary disclosure in US job ads appears to now be the norm. New data from job marketplace Indeed shows that as of August more than half of US job postings on the site included a salary range.

Pay transparency laws have recently spread across the US, taking effect in Colorado in 2021, New York City in 2022, and California and Washington states this year. New York state enacted its own law yesterday. But the trend to more openness about pay may also reflect a growing awareness that pay transparency is good for business.

Indeed surveyed US job seekers earlier this year and found that 75 percent of them would be more likely to apply for a job if it included salary data. Postings that included pay rates attracted 30 percent more applicants on the site. “With the tight labor market, pay transparency seems to be one of the new tactics employers can use to attract workers,” says Cory Stahle, an economist at Indeed who conducted the study.

The New York law that took effect yesterday is intended to address pay inequity and requires employers with four or more workers to include on job ads the precise pay rate or a range that they believe in “good faith” to be accurate. It applies to employees who work in New York as well as remote workers who report to New York-based supervisors.

When New York City’s law went into effect in November, some employers tested the “good faith” requirement. A job post from the financial services company Citi went viral for offering a range of $0 to $2 million, although the company later called it an error. Still, spreads ranging from $50,000 to $180,000 for a reporter job or $197,000 to $366,000 for a VP of marketing strained credulity.

Companies appear to set wide ranges to avoid ceding their bargaining power. Stahle says such shenanigans may be shortsighted, given that listings with narrower salary ranges appear to attract more applicants. When he looked at the width of salary bands on job ads that included them for the 12 months ending April 2023, he found that tighter job markets tended to correlate with narrower bands, perhaps because employers were forced to make their listings more attractive. Over that period, in-demand occupations such as childcare and food service saw their salary ranges narrow the fastest.

On the flip side, salary bands widened considerably in more employer-friendly markets, including the tech hubs of San Jose and Seattle. After the industry cut hundreds of thousands of jobs in late 2022 and early 2023, employers may not have felt compelled to be very precise, says Stahle. Listings for software developers had among the highest salary spreads, with a 35 percent gap between the high and low pay rates.

When Colorado first enacted its pay transparency law in 2021, some employers balked, refusing to hire workers in the state. Now that more than a quarter of US workers are covered by some form of salary disclosure law, with more likely to follow, that’s no longer feasible.

Some employers may also be starting to see the benefits of openness and voluntarily sharing salary information. In addition to attracting more applicants, research shows that salary disclosure improves candidate quality, boosts retention in some cases, and can help narrow the gender and racial wage gaps. It can also benefit smaller employers: Indeed found that candidates were more likely to apply for jobs at companies they didn’t recognize if they posted salary information.

But salary transparency can also have unintended consequences, according to analysis by Todd Zenger, a business professor at the University of Utah. As he and Indiana University business professor Tomasz Obloj write Harvard Business Review, studies suggest that the practice lowers overall wages because it gives employers cover to avoid negotiating for higher pay. Bosses can more easily fend off an individual request for a raise when they can claim that a negotiation for one is a negotiation for all.

Other studies show that pay transparency can also reduce pay gaps between high and low performers, causing potential dissatisfaction and turnover among talented staff. And transparency pushes employers to reward measurable metrics over potentially more important qualities like cooperation and helpfulness. When National Hockey League players learned that their pay was largely based on offensive performance metrics, their defense tanked, and overall performance declined.

While removing the guesswork about compensation is meant to smooth the negotiation process, it can also have the opposite effect. Weiting Liu, who runs Arc, a job search platform for software developers, says that many applicants overestimate their qualifications and request salaries at the top end of the range. “This poses additional challenges for employers, as they need to come up with reasons to explain why they don’t meet the qualifications for the top salary,” he says.

Nonetheless, pay transparency is catching on. Indeed’s data shows that every US state increased its disclosure rate over the past year, and five states did so by more than 20 percentage points. Three were states that had passed state or local laws—California, Washington, and New York—but the list also included Vermont and South Dakota, neither of which mandate pay disclosure.

Stahle hypothesizes that this is because of their proximity to states that do have laws in place, New York and Colorado. Employers may want to attract commuters or remote candidates in those states, he says. He also found that pay transparency increased in states that simply proposed laws, which both of these states have.

It remains to be seen how useful that data will be if the labor market cools, potentially widening the ranges employers advertise. “There may be ups and downs over time,” says Stahle. “But salary transparency is here to stay.”

[lovecomedy]

I would like to add an excerpt of an academic article found in the Richard III Society:

“ The silence of English historians over Richard Ill's negotiations for a Portuguese marriage is deafening. I have remarked elsewhere that for this period, English history is too heavily dependent on Polydore Vergil. Whether he knew of the negotiations is doubtful; if he did, he kept silence, realizing perhaps that they undermined the picture he was trying to paint o Richard IlI.

[…] Secondly, the Portuguese marriage negotiations raise some serious questions over the interpretation of Richard III. The Portuguese were under considerable pressure in 1485; John II could be a ruthless monarch, a worthy contemporary of Ferdinand of Aragon.* But it strains credulity that the King and his Council of State should have tried to coerce Joanna into marrying a blood-stained usurper; still less that she, albeit under pressure and conditionally, should have accepted him when she had already refused Maximilian of Austria and Charles, Duke of Orleans. It was not that the court in Portugal could have been unaware of events in England.”

Barrie Williams, The Portuguese Connection and the Significance of ‘the Holy Princess’

Joanna, Princess of Portugal and Richard III

One very relevant fact that people often forget in the fracas over Richard III’s supposed feelings for Elizabeth of York (or hers for him or whatever) is that there is existing proof he had no intention of marrying her.

That proof was found in the Portuguese royal archives, in the form of correspondance between Richard and the Portuguese royal family, arranging for a double marriage contract - Elizabeth was to be married to the future Manuel I of Portugal, while Richard was to wed Joanna, Princess of Portugal.

I’ve seen people mention that, but that little debunking isn’t even what’s most interesting about the discovery. What doesn’t get talked about nearly enough is what Richard’s choice of would-be bride - and her agreement - proves about him.

If people remember nothing else from this post, I hope this one thing lingers in everyone’s memories:

Princess Joanna was a bamf.

We are not talking about some obedient arm-candy princess here. Joanna was named the heir to the throne of Portugal after the death of her older brother, and even after her younger brother was born and made the heir, Joanna served as regent when their father Afonso V of Portugal was away on military campaign. Joanna was 19 when she ruled Portugal with the power of a sole monarch.

This is not a lady a man would propose to if he just wanted a pretty little biddable wife and baby machine.

Even after her brother came of age and took over the throne, Joanna had no intention of bowing down to others’ wishes. Although she was unable to become a nun as she wanted, she retired to a convent, albeit returning to court several times.

She was no pushover when it came to marriage, either. Despite her brother’s urging she turned down several wealthy and powerful suitors, including Charles VIII of France, who was 18 years her junior at the time. Despite the pronounced advantages and illustrious names and titles of some of her suitors, she refused them all.

That is, until Richard’s offer.

There is a story going around, even among Ricardians, that Joanna only accepted Richard because she knew he was going to die at Bosworth. Personally I find that not only superstitious and silly but also offensive to both of them. Yes, she was devoutly religious, but that doesn’t mean she ran her life by so-called ‘prophetic dreams’, nor that she accepted Richard dishonestly because she knew she’d not have to keep her word.

Once you put that myth aside, and knowing she didn’t allow herself to be pressured into marriage, the conclusion left is that Joanna found something acceptable about Richard that her previous suitors had lacked. The pair had things in common: both were devoutly religious and they were nearly the same age, but I think it’s safe to guess that Joanna accepted Richard for the same reason he offered:

Because he wanted a queen. Not just a wife, or a mother for his heirs, but a woman who knew how to rule. His first wife had been the daughter of the Kingmaker; it’s highly doubtful that Anne had been any pushover either. He was still young and strong but he had now lost his heir and then his wife, and his kingdom wasn’t as stable as he wanted it to be. He needed a strong partner in ruling, a woman in whose hands he could safely leave the court of England while he rode off to quell rebellions. He found that lady in Joanna of Portugal and she, who had turned down illustrious royal suitors before, found Richard’s offer worth accepting. 

Whatever Joanna’s reasons for accepting Richard’s proposal and no other, it’s worth noting that she never found any others worth accepting even after his death. She died in 1490 having never married.

In all her life and all the marriage alliances offered her, Joanna, Princess of Portugal, only ever accepted one: with Richard III.

Why is no one talking about that?