thethirdromana

[thethirdromana]

still haven’t gotten around to watching the third doctor’s run but i think i’ve picked up whatever these two are putting down

[thethirdromana]

Pun walks into a room, kills ten people

Pun in, ten dead

[thethirdromana]

Farscape is a great show because you’ll have an episode about colonialism, the exploitation of workers and indigenous people / their land, your responsibility for resisting unjust systems you’re a part of, etc, and the climax will hinge on explosive puppet urine

[thethirdromana]

AO3 Femslash Top 100: Round 2

[thethirdromana]

I am now wondering something seeing you're with me posts and some material that promotes Whitby in relation to Dracula like a recent uniform. Both Whitby and Transylvania have used the fact that in the novel Dracula has terrorized/killed people/got killed there. But I have not seen the same thing used for Purfleet or Hampstead Heath, where a significant portion of the story takes place with Dracula's bloody encounters with Lucy, Renfield, Mina. (I assume partly because they are not described the same way as the countryside in either country is, and I vaguely recall when Seward talks about his surroundings he paints a smoggy picture.)

I think you're right, a lot of it is to do with the vividness of the description. Frankly the Purfleet sections could be happening anywhere; the Transylvania and Whitby sections are much more distinctive.

But I think it's also because Whitby looks like this:

And Transylvania looks like this:

(obligatory note that Transylvania is 5x the size of Wales so looks quite varied)

And Purfleet, even without the smog, looks like this:

Apparently it was a tourist destination in the late Victorian and Edwardian period. But not so much any more.

[thethirdromana]

Hi! Because you know things about British and Irish 19th century culture, I wonder if you have any opinions on how long the characters of Dracula would be (at least expected to be) on a grieving period (dressing specifically in mourning apparel etc.) I think by late September all of them would be in mourning, given the loss of Lucy being a huge blow for Mina, Arthur and the other three men+Arthur and the Harkers losing their father/foster father at the same time. Then about two months later, they all would be grieving Quincey, too.

I see online some "rules" regarding degrees of legal relation to the dead and how long it was expected to grieve depending on those (and that women were expected to dress the part longer), but I've not found much about friends/fiancée/surrogate father. Would those be up to the individual? Because I imagine "not my fiancée but I loved her and poured my blood into her along with my mentor and my two old friends" could still warrantee a period of grieving regardless of societal expectations, for example.

I'm going to sound my *not an expert* klaxon before I go into this. I've just researched a bit but may very well get things wrong.

There are a few different aspects to Victorian mourning customs: social expectations, fashion, and communication. Dressing in mourning apparel was a little bit like wearing a wedding ring today, in that there's a social expectation that married people will wear a ring (though they might not), there are fashions that dictate what that ring might look like (e.g. a diamond), and it communicates things about the wearer and how they expect to be treated (e.g. you probably shouldn't hit on them).

So there was a social expectation that people would wear mourning clothes and withdraw from society for a period. There were fashions in what that should look like (e.g. this article from 1889 goes into frankly exhausting detail about the minutiae of buttons and fabric choices and trim, and implies that those things were in a state of flux). But the most important thing was publicly signalling that you were in mourning communicated how other people should treat you. That's both from an emotional perspective (being given some grace at a difficult time) and a practical one (not being expected to attend the usual social events).

This extract from an 1888 etiquette book goes into detail about lengths of mourning periods, and the impression I get is that you're right - it was up to the individual what they felt was appropriate when there wasn't a set period. I'm guessing now, but I think it might be acceptable (though not necessary) for Arthur to mourn Lucy up to the period of mourning for a wife; not that it really matters in this case because he would be in mourning for that length of time for his father anyway.

A step-parent who had filled the role of a parent was mourned for the same length of time as a parent, so the Harkers could well choose to do the same for Mr Hawkins.

In Jack's case, though, I think it would be unconventional to engage in formal mourning for Quincey, and possibly outright socially unacceptable for him to do so for Lucy. He might have some private mourning tokens like a memorial locket. I really am just guessing here, but I suspect that public mourning for an unmarried woman, who was engaged to another man, and who wasn't a relative or even a childhood friend, would look over the top at best and imply an affair at worst.

I think it would have incredible angst potential post-canon for Jack to be surrounded by Arthur and the Harkers in deepest mourning, and not be allowed to do the same himself.

[thethirdromana]

The Online Safety Act sucks. But Wikipedia has not been banned in the UK. From the Wikimedia Foundation's own statement:

While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court’s ruling emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented.  The judge recognized the “significant value” of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorisations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors. The Court stressed that this ruling “does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations”,  and indicated they could face legal repercussions if they fail to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users. In order to achieve that outcome, he suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules in question, or that the rules themselves may need amendment in Parliament.

I'm all for criticism of the OSA, it's a terrible piece of legislation. But let's be accurate about the facts.

Wikipedia is lost to our friends across the waters.

[thethirdromana]

[thethirdromana]

To me in 2016: if youre still on this website, fuck you but i understand

[thethirdromana]

[thethirdromana]

#if you have a favorite guinan ship PLEASE tell me

I have a quiet ongoing fascination with how Guinan/Picard (as lovers or as friends) interacts with Picard/Q (ditto). Guinan and Picard have a relationship that is "beyond friendship, beyond family", Q is fascinated with Picard, and Guinan and Q hate each other. I find it such an intriguing dynamic.

FWIW I've also written Guinan/Leeta.

Tragic that people aren’t more into shipping Guinan because in my personal opinion there is so much potential. For F/M shippers, options include Guinan/Picard (extremely compelling canon dynamic with excellent chemistry), Guinan/Riker (canonically flirted, fun dynamic), and Guinan/Worf (could be really cute + she introduced him to his favorite drink). For F/F shippers we have Guinan/Ro (fascinating canon dynamic with compelling interactions), Guinan/Troi (they’re both listeners – what’s it like for them to be listened to?), and Guinan/Yar (doomed love between two people who were never meant to know each other). This isn’t even mentioning all the possible crossover ships with other Star Trek shows. Given Guinan’s lifespan, she could have theoretically met almost any other Star Trek character.

[thethirdromana]

You're so right OP. I really enjoyed this fic for these two:

Remarkable to me that these two aren’t like a massive fandom juggernaut ship. “Very interesting friendship”, indeed.

[thethirdromana]

People do remember that Victorian mourning was about like. Being sad. Right?

It wasn't just an excuse to be ostentatiously goth. They had other ways to be ostentatiously goth, trust me. It was a way to say "hey, I'm going through something really really awful; please be gentle with me."

It looks goth to us now because we associate all of their clothing with that, but imagine someone today going around in very normal, subdued, all black every day attire and that's what that looks like to them. Imagine memorial tattoos and T-shirts and things like that – that's what all of those rings and brooches looked like to them. Because those were normal modes of self expression at the time, just like tattoos or shirts are today 

Feel like there would be far fewer garments and objects being mistakenly and sensationally labeled as "mourning [ie garment worn exclusively for this purpose, not just a black garment that could serve for the later stages but also for everyday]" on the Internet today if people kept remembering the basic maxim of "does this visually demonstrate that someone is sad?"

Sparkly revealing black stuff is not what you wear when you're sad. Sparkly revealing black stuff is what you wear when you're having fun wearing sparkly revealing black stuff

[thethirdromana]

I'm not so sure about this.

The final verse reveals that the whole song is being narrated by Skater Boy's current girlfriend (allegedly written by her and Skater Boy). She's not exactly an unbiased source; we don't get Pretty Face's own view of events.

More importantly, I'd suggest that people who are in genuinely happy, fulfilled relationships don't write 3-minute pop songs about someone who turned them down five years ago.

Is it genuinely Pretty Face who's lonely and mired with regret? Or is there an element of protesting too much in Skater Boy and his current girlfriend's decision to write a song about how much better their relationship is?

Skater Boy and his current girlfriend claim that they're "in love" and "rock each other's world" but the focus of the song they wrote isn't a celebration of their own relationship, it's denigrating someone from years ago who Skater Boy didn't even date. It comes across as petty and bitter.

I think they could have made it more obvious.

Why are my friends like this

[thethirdromana]

hey babe im gonna be home late tonight do you mind picking up dinner. yeah sorry the king has us working over time, some fuckin egghead sat on the wall and had a GREAT fall. we've got all the men working on this but idk if we're gonna be able to put him back together again. yeah we've tried the horses. ok bye love you.

[thethirdromana]

Some of you on this site are so scared of writing fairly conventional anatomy-based sex porn because of the cringe-words and general discomfort with sex. It helps to have had sex, but that's not necessary. After the break, as it is somewhat explicit, here is all you need to do, and it is not a list of euphemisms for penis or vagina or xenoapparatus:

Choreograph it in the same respect that you would any scene. If you can do this, you can have some confidence that your porn is exactly as good as your fights, your key gambling maneuvers, your political oneupsmanship, whatever. The key to writing any scene is to know where everyone is and what they are doing and impart this from the lens of the point of view character. If something feels "off" or weird, check in with yourself: what is the point of view character doing? Say it. She has her nails digging into her lover's shoulders. Was that, what she's doing, the last sentence? Let her react to it instead: the thrill of hot blood against her fingertips is intoxicating.

Many of the "porn mistakes" are just writing mistakes, and writing is an unending dialogue between the material (what is physically happening) and the ideal (how a perspective processes the material, with human and personal limitations but also human and personal additions). When you've firmly established the material, you move back to the ideal, the thought-space, the recollection-space, the processing. Then back to the material. Each action spins out and away from the earth, into the ether, where it is reintegrated, leveraged, subverted, and then returns, changed, to collide with the earth again, changing it in turn.

You do not have to say words for penis over and over any more than you need to keep clarifying proper names in a dialogue, and in fact, even less than this. Remember, unless your character is specifically having sex with the penis, she is in fact having sex with a woman, and her feelings and reactions and ideal likely center that woman more than her penis. Put her in dialogue with the woman rather than the penis and you have your answer: you only need to say cock as many times as you would say "rapier" in a swordfight. Once you know what sword it is, you move to sensation, movement, "large scale choreography", and processing.

The unique thing when talking about genitals is that most people don't think much about genitals when they are having sex. They think about sensations: what feels good, unexpected, painful, pleasant, intimate, jarring, etc. Saying "her cock" over and over is not just a little offputting because it's excessively repetitive; it's like putting "gauntlet" in five subsequent paragraphs. We get that there's a gauntlet and a penis. It feels wrong because the gauntlet is an extension of the striking-appendage and the penis is an extension of a character.

To avoid saying gauntlet over and over, as in any writing, you either get vaguer or get specificer. You describe the interaction with the wrist-plate, where the rapier rebounds from the shape of the steel, or the fingertip sliced-through by the superior blade, just barely shallow enough to spare the digit beneath (specific). Alternately, you get vaguer and describe the strike itself - the reader knows there's a gauntlet there! - a fist thrown in desperation after losing hold of a dagger, the weight both pulling down the blow and putting momentum behind it until it meets the enemy's helmet with more of a thud than a clang as the cheap steel crumples into the leather padding beneath, dented skull-deep.

Neither of those used "gauntlet". Both used the concept of the gauntlet. This can be done with anything that you establish - once it's on the stage, it's not off until you take it off.

Of course it helps, to an extent, to have had the kind of sex you are describing. It helps more to have been thoughtful about your own sensation and reaction and action during sex in general; few people really do this, but doing it is extremely useful for writing, the same way riding a horse and not thinking about it will lead you to over-describe the tack you're familiar with vs. riding a horse and thinking about it will help you develop a coherent material dialogue with the content of your own narrative. To an extent, to write about sex, you need to have some level of comfort thinking and reading about sex. Anyone can do those two things, and allow themself to think: at the moment of being penetrated, is her shaft sliding into my fragrant blossom? Or is the sensation more like pressure, more like pain, more like an insistent heat, more like an awareness of her and her shape or an awareness of myself and my limits or my pleasure?

As in sword fights, it helps to imagine yourself in the scene rather than only observing it, when it comes to blocking out a scene like something other than stage directions or a video game novelization.

The last thread this leads me to is pussy. No one wants to write pussy, unless they do. So they write entrance, which you can only really write once before it sounds goofy. Or cunt, which not every character would say. There is not really a cock of pussy, at least in my literary opinion. So how do you say this stuff? How do you say "into her pussy" if it causes you physical pain to write pussy?

You may not need to specify at all. When penetrating someone, you are penetrating a person, not just an organ. Depending on the nature of the sex, you may want to get into more or less detail, but I'm not talking to the people who are already writing about the color of the labia and the specific tactile sensation of a blood-flushed clit, okay? I'm speaking to you if you have stopped and made a terrible face at the thought of "pussy" and then deleted it and written "cunt" and cringed again.

My hot tip, as connects to all the rest of this, is that if there is not a word for the place you are stabbing her, you are just stabbing her. You are dragging your fingers over her until she yields. You are lining yourself up with her, pressing in, adjusting cautiously until she wriggles her hips, urging you to get on with it already. You are drawing your hips back against the friction of her trembling body. Could any of these be her asshole? Her neovagina? Her alien hole where she excretes salt waste? Of course! If it's important to specify, specify! If what's hot about fucking someone is the logistics of the hole, then by God, logistics the shit out of that hole without shame. But what makes porn hot is not the hole itself. It's the interaction with the hole, gone warm and molten as her desperate breaths come quicker. It's how the hole makes you feel. Fuck you.

Word choices for describing sex organs are an expression of how the perspective character feels about them. A heavily euphemistic description may either reveal something important about the character and her misgivings or set the narrative itself up for subversion - the girl who winces and thinks of her penis as "her manhood" is going to have something to unpack later or even during sex. The dispassionate "shaft" could either reflect disinvestment, to be dramatized later on, or set up that disinvestment to be subverted, as the humble shaft becomes the instrument of orgasm.

Think of how anime often has internal-monologue turning points to explain where a character's last reserve of energy comes from - the setup, the dead parent, the tragic past, the loss of a friend, it comes from somewhere, and the payoff to winning the duel is catharsis. It's just a more straightforward way of illustrating the point of most building-to-a-climax, which porn often deliberately does: you can only pay off on what you set up. Otherwise you revert to tropes and the underdog-hero wins for no reason and the girl-hero cums and it doesn't even matter because ten thousand she/hers have cum exactly that way in ten thousand prior okay scenes. The difference in payoff is all in a setup that the payoff can reintegrate: a material and an ideal that unite in a moment of pure emotional release.

I can't make you better at writing sex scenes than you are at writing fight scenes, but if you follow this advice you can be just as good.

[thethirdromana]

when you’ve honed the fine art of perfectly-timed reblogging of something aimed at one specific mutual and they immediately like it