Creative writing is way closer to engineering than I think a lot of people expect. It takes creativity and imagination to decide what to write about. It takes a lot of honed dedication to craft to really make the word-to-word prose sparkle. But all the stuff in between? Knowing how long an idea should be, what medium it should be, how many characters, and how their motivations need to interact, all that shit is basically engineering.

All that plot and structure shit is the bones. I think it really trips some writers up. I think it's why writing a novel feels like torture for poets (poor fundamentals, all schmoovement), and why half-decent essayists can rapidly churn out slop (strong fundamentals, poor tech).

suggestions for gender neutral version of mom/dad? something less formal than just ‘parent’

please note that while progenitor, guardian, spawnpoint etc are all respected titles, they are more the equivalent of mother/father than an affectionate nickname you would scream through the house multiple times a day. gimme something we can use people

I just tried to combine the words and got “dom” and i cant-

but wait, if we reverse ‘dom’ you get ‘mod’. I suggest we use ‘moderator’ as a gender neutral version of mom/dad

Admin and op would work makes them sound powerful and in charge of everything

Admin (respectful) Op (derogatory)

i was going to add something else to this but instead i got to thinking and i was like huh. what could you use.

in most languages the word for ‘mother’ usually starts with an M, because phonetically [m] is one of the easiest sounds for a newborn to make when they start babbling, and mothers tend to be the one most around the child. so in my mind that crosses M off the list, because it’s automatically associated with a feminine figure

similarly, ‘father’ tends to start with D, T, P, or B. (phonetically these sounds are very close together; [p, b] and [d, t] are all only different because of being voiced or unvoiced.) these are also phonetically easy letters and ones kids pick up on earlier.

now the hard sounds for kids are the following: [ɹ, d͡ʒ, tʃ, θ, ð] or in normal speak: the English R, the “j” or “dge” sound in “judge,” the “th” sound in “thigh” and the “th” sound in “the.” and we don’t want kids unable to say their parent’s name for years, so those are also off the list.

additionally, it’s easiest for young kids to just repeat the same sound twice rather than figuring out the tongue gymnastics of putting different sounds together, which is why kids will say Ma-Ma or Da-Da and not Ma-Mo or Da-Po. and we’ll want to stick with low back vowels like “ah” and avoid ones like the hard “i” or “ee.”

so what does that leave us? when we want a sound kids can learn easily and early but don’t want to just put a funky spin on “mama” or “dada”?

my suggestions: G, K, W, L. i personally lean towards W and L. they’re called liquids, since they’re the consonants that kind of aren’t consonants, and kids (and ESL learners) will tend to swap out the English R for a W or L until they can learn the R.

if i ever have a child, they’ll start calling me Wawa. then when they get older, they’ll call me Wala, or maybe even Wally.

and then, once they’re finally phonetically developed, they can call me by my true title as their nonbinary guardian for their 18+ years:

Waluigi.

Okay, but on an actually serious note, Baba is used in several different languages, but the meaning changes between mother, father, or grandparent. However, it is not used in English afaik, so it could be a good English option.

baba is what I use as a nonbinary parent (it has a long history for butches!) and this post hit me like a two-by-four to the back of the goddamn HEAD

How about Tata, because no matter what, they’re gonna try to latch onto a nipple

wait wait wait, do babies try to latch on to the nipples of non-lactating parents too? is this a thing? do babies just automatically zero in on any nipple in the vicinity, regardless of the presence of breasts or breast milk? is this an experience cis men deal with I need to KNOW

UPDATE: based on the notes the answer is a resounding YES!!!

I can’t speak to cis men’s experience, but my house has this kind of lamp, and my progeny were both very fascinated by it whenever I would carry them under one of them.

The lamp thing is legit, I’ve discussed it with so many fellow breastfeeding parents. The weirdest one for me was when my son latched onto the tied knot of a balloon.

I am so so grateful I decided to scroll through the tags:

oh fantastic tags:

#maud  #when i was little i called both my parents mom/dad mixture i didn’t know who i wanted so just who ever came first to me yelling that

Enter the WISE AND GAUDY SLIME, attendants, clowns, and wizards, with DOGGONLO the SEER

GAUDY SLIME Again I come to you, my followers, To ask a question near my goopy heart: When speaking to a parent, gender - none, What name am I to give them when I call? For, while “progenitor” is accurate, ‘Tis not a quip to call across the town.

FIRST CLOWN The word that comes to mind at first is “dom”.

FIRST WIZARD ‘Tis true, but if revers’d thy message is, A “moderator” comes to mind, with “mod”.

SECOND WIZARD Why, “op” would work when paired with “admin” ‘tis.

GAUDY SLIME Say “admin” when respect and love thou needst, Say “op” when meant derogatorily.

DOGGONLO At first, hearing thy words, I was to jest; But then, at second thought, I pondered it. What could one use when not a “ma” or “pa”? So, “ma”, the word, comes from a babe’s outcry, Since “em” and “ah” are easy to pronounce. And “da” and “pa” are also simply said. So what for gender-null? What for our Slime? Well, “ja” and “tha” and “tsa” are none a fit, As “ja-tha-tsa” are difficult to say - No babe could speak them while still in its youth. And in addition, repetition’s key, For “ma-ma” is to “pa-ma” pref'rable. We’ll stay with low and back-held vowels, too, For “ee” and “eye” are too complex for babes, So to the “ah” and “ooh” we keep our sound. Remaining still available to us, Good “ga”, kind “ka”, wise “wa”, and, lastly, “la”. Of these fine gents I point to “la” and “wa” As consonants that almost vowels be And make for ease of song for baby voice. If ever I a child take to me (For man or woman, neither one am I) A “wawa” or a “lala” will I be. And as they grow, their speech will strong become Till finally my true name’s in their grasp: ‘Tis Waluigi.

FIRST ATTENDANT Spite! O, I am hit! I thought I was to learn the lore of words But struck by cruel and slapstick strike am I!

THIRD WIZARD Uh, “baba” works, it’s used in other tongues.

SECOND ATTENDANT Yes, “baba” is the one I use, i'faith. But still - o Seer, why must thou attack?

SECOND CLOWN It seems to me that “tata” is the one For babes to “tatas” cling, no matter what.

GAUDY SLIME Wait, clown, dost thou speak truth to me? Real truth? Will babes reach for a breast devoid of milk?

CLOWNS and ATTENDANTS cheer in affirmation.

O never had I thought this day would come.

Enter the gay mothers, THOUGHTFUL and SUZLOUA.

THOUGHTFUL I cannot of a milkless breast inform, But lights shaped like a breast will draw the babe.

SUZLOUA I’ve heard the same by others said before. My son’s reached out for tied balloons in past.

GAUDY SLIME In gratitude I share with you a tale ‘Twas whisper’d to my ear a moment since: One said, when baptised, he then look’d about And tried to eat the “milk” of candles lit.

THIRD CLOWN This scene has all that ever I could want, The milk of human kindness shows itself, The gender-neutral words are brought along, And finally, our Waluigi’s here.

GAUDY SLIME Before we go, one final note to say: A friend has lately told that, as a child, They’d call for “maud” to come, for ‘twas A combination “ma” and “dad” in brief.

Merriment and rejoicing. The SHAKESPEAREIFIER lurks in the corner, taking notes.

Exeunt.

Archived.

just saw the perforated baton rope making demonstration video for the first time and i 😲

none of you even give a fuck that weve found a possible use for one of the most mysterious ancient tools...?

YES ABSOLUTELY

so perforated batons are a type of paleolithic tool that was in use for THOUSANDS of years. weve found hundreds of examples across Europe and Asia of these. theyre typically made from antler or ivory, and are long batons with at least one hole thats been drilled through

at first they were called "batons of command" and the assumption was that these were ritualistic or symbolic items that represented strength or status in a group of individuals.

more modern interpretations include that they couldve been used as spear throwing tools, or that the holes couldve been used in spear or arrow making to pull them straight.

in a more recent study done on this mammoth ivory baton, which was found in Hohle Fels cave in Germany, they were specifically interested in the spiralized carvings feeding into each perforation

they studied small pieces of organic matter that were found inside the holes, and they were found to be FULL of plant fibres in way higher concentration than the other nearby soil, indicating that this baton at least was a tool used on plants. the idea came up that it could be a rope making tool

so they made a replica, and wove rope.

these tools were likely multipurpose, and we can never know the motivations of the ancient people who made them, but we have at least proven that these tools are capable of making rope very efficiently!

here you can watch a video demonstration of a group using a replica to make rope!

Oh this is FASCINATING! Mod A and I were recently on a conference on prehistoric clothing - this is one aspect of textile working in the broader sense that I definetely missed!

Fun fact, also: The specific finds that lead to this discovery were made at the Hohe Fels by Professor Nicholas Conrad and his team and published in 2016, in collaboration with Dr. Veerle Roots - here's a link to the original paper about ropemaking, and another one to the Archäologie Online article about the discovery. The Hohe Fels and neighboring Vogelherd caves are some of the most important prehistoric sites in all of Europe - you might be more familiar with them as the sites that turned up these ivory animal figurines, amongst others!

Experimental Archaeology is one of the most powerful tools in humanity's toolbox, because you can't know about some things until you try it for yourself.

And sometimes what you thought was the reason or purpose? Turns out to be a wild guess that was way off mark.

A lot, and I mean a lot of guesswork assigns ritualistic significance to archaeological finds (speaking of the objects, not any conclusions, here). "If it was important enough to bury with them, then it must have religious significance!" is a thought that sounds plausible, but a lot of what a person would need "in the next life" would be tools similar to what they used in this life. Making rope? Very important.

How important, you might ask?

Well, bushcrafters, survivalists, and so forth all have come to agree with what survivalist instructor Dave Canterbury calls "The 5Cs of Survival". These are the 5 tools you need to survive just about any situation (on land). They are: Cover (which starts with clothing, not just tarps, tents, etc), Cutting Tool (as sophisticated as steel, as simple as a sharp-edged stone), Combustion Device (matches, lighter, ferrorod, fresnel lens, magnifying lens, and any sort of friction or compression setup, such as a fire drill bow drill, and so forth), Container (for boiling and carrying water), and Cordage (threads, cords, ropes).

Cordage is absolutely a survival need. With it, you can tie things to your body, such as a gathering basket, wear a blanket as clothing, etc. You can tie up a tarp to serve as a rainfly. You can bundle together sticks to carry back to your camp for firewood. You can make netting for a fishing net, a net bag, a net basket, a hammock to sleep up off the ground where snakes and scorpions, etc, cannot get at you. You can lash together tripods for supporting the rain tarp or the hammock, and put together furniture to sit on, to process gathered materials on, and even a platform to build a fire on if the ground is too wet, or too dangerously peaty to build a fire. (It does require mud & stones for insulation, but it is doable! Some areas, you do NOT want to build a ground fire, because it'll lead to forest forest.)

In the modern era, we've come to rely heavily upon nails & screws, which thanks to industrialization are cheap and plentiful, but while we could also use wooden pegs and holes, it's difficult to drill the hole in a Stone Age setting. (Not impossible, just difficult and time-consuming.) Notching two sticks so they fit against each other a little more closely and then binding them with lashings--cordage!--is a valuable tool for constructing drying frames for preserving meat and plant-life, as well as crafting a nice chair to sit on. Cordage can be used to get your food high up off the ground, out of the reach of wild animals--a trick we still use to this day in bear country!

Cordage is incredibly useful, and absolutely, if our fellow humans from ages ago had invented a tool to aid in rope-making, you can absolutely bet they'd want to have a tool that helps them make evenly constructed rope that would be solid enough to be reliable. And they'd absolutely want this useful tool for making more consistently successful rope with them in the next life.

Why is it important to have well-made rope? If one strand in a ply of cordage is more tautly pulled than the others, then more of the load placed on that cordage will be placed on those specific fibers, while the other ply (2-ply, 3-ply, however many are involved) will not be taking up nearly as much of the load.

Cordage is only as strong as its weakest fibers, but that weakness can come not just from materials quality, but also from having too much stress applied to one set of fibers. A ropemaking tool like the one in the posts above absolutely will help even out the stresses applied to the fibers, redistributing the weight more evenly. After all, if one strand of a 3-ply cord is taking 80% of the weight and the other two are taking 10% of the weight each, then the moment that 80% snaps, the very abrupt shock of that part of the cord breaking will likely cause the other two to snap as well, because suddenly they're having to support 50% of the stress when the third section breaks. But if you can get all 3 cords close to each one sharing 33% of the weight, they have a lot more "cushion room" to share out the stresses involved.

Well-made cordage can save lives, whether it's keeping the parts of a hut lashed together, or a rope used to ascend and descent a cliff to go after honeycomb, or even just as the rotation string on a bow drill that is being used to start a friction fire that'll keep you warm and dry and scare off predators in the night.

Cordage is 100% a major survival tool, and well-made cordge will save your life. Badly made cordage won't.

day 1 at the communal puzzle club: i see a puzzle with a sign next to it that says "please help with our communal puzzle" and i say to myself "don't mind if I do" and did the whole thing

day 2 at the communal puzzle club: i get gently reprimanded for not sharing the puzzle experience with the others. in my defense I thought they needed all the help they could get

day 3 at the communal puzzle club: we start a new puzzle and i put one of the pieces in my pocket and save it for later so i can be the one who puts in the last piece

day 4 at the communal puzzle club: the puzzle is almost complete so i reach into my pocket and realize i left the last piece in my other pants which are currently in the washing machine. i feign ignorance

day 5 at the communal puzzle club: the others are suspicious but they have no proof. they check my pockets before i leave but little do they know that this time i ate the pieces

day 6 at the communal puzzle club: i put an entire bottle of miralax in my coffee to get the pieces out of my digestive system but they are too far dissolved to be usable. my stomach is in so much pain and i can't stop shitting but i rinse off what's left of the pieces and make it to puzzle club anyway, only to find out they don't meet on mondays. i am inconsolable.

day 7 at the communal puzzle club: i realized those pieces are incriminating evidence so i slipped them in someone else's pocket. i should be good as long as they don't find residual traces of my dna

day 8 at the communal puzzle club: there is an odd feeling in my gut. i feel as if something has been awoken in me

day 9 at the communal puzzle club: i am in such deep focus that the others are starting to fear me. either that or they are cowering away from the communal puzzle out of sheer respect for my skills

day 10 at the communal puzzle club: i'm getting better and better, i can now do several puzzles in one day. the others are discussing what to do about me in hushed tones. little do they know my laser focus allows me to hear everything they say. they aren't a threat.

day 11 at the communal puzzle club: the club manager unlocked the door but already i am inside. ive been here all night doing puzzles in the dark. they threaten to ban me from the club so in response i pick a 500 piece puzzle at random and complete it in under 45 minutes, just to show them who the real authority is

day 12 at the communal puzzle club: i have been officially banned from the communal puzzle club. in a fit of rage i grab as many pieces as i can and eat them, making sure to thoroughly chew and swallow every single one. if i can't do them, no one can.

day 13 at the communal puzzle club: it's monday again. the club doesn't meet today. it's the perfect opportunity to break in and do as many puzzles as my heart desires, without any of the club's petty drama to distract me

day 14 at the communal puzzle club: i am in jail because the club manager snitched to the cops like the pathetic weakling they are. this is the worst night of my entire life there aren't any puzzles here

day 15 at the communal puzzle club: the judge let me off with a restraining order since I didn't actually steal anything. i show back up to communal puzzle club just to make a show of ripping the order to shreds. no piece of paper will dictate my life, only jigsaw-cut cardboard has that power. nothing else.

day 16 at the communal puzzle club: everyone is so quiet today when I walk in. I eat some pieces in a show of force, just to remind everyone who's in charge. I comment that they taste somewhat like strychnine, they say it's just because Ravensburger has a new method of chemically processing their pieces. sounds plausible. 30 minutes later i am convulsing violently but i beg them not to call an ambulance until i finish the puzzle i was working on. but the bastards don't listen and I'm shipped off to the hospital kicking and screaming.

day 17 at the communal puzzle club: i spent the night in the hospital. a detective comes in and says they're investigating the manager of the communal puzzle club for attempted murder and asks what i know. i tell him honestly that i ain't no snitch and spit in his face. he says they have more than enough evidence to prosecute regardless.

day 18 at the communal puzzle club: the club manager is on trial for attempted murder and i am called as a witness. i tell the judge that i ain't no snitch and spit in his face. i am held in contempt of the court

day 19 at the communal puzzle club: the defense makes a plea of justifiable self defense, citing the restraining order that isn't even 1 week old. somehow the judge buys that flimsy defense. i mean, this is the same judge who didn't even recognize me from that same case despite being the same judge. i think the poor old man has dementia so i make a motion for a mistrial. it gets shot down because the system is corrupt.

day 20 at the communal puzzle club: the judge says i should get jail time but he decided i should be in a mental facility instead. i don't know why he would think that, i have been nothing but sane my entire life. god forbid a woman have hobbies

day 1 in the psych ward: they have puzzles in here this is amazing

day 2 in the psych ward: all the puzzles are missing a few pieces. this is unacceptable. im going to go insane

day 3 in the psych ward: i have been informed that they do not use the word "insane" in here so i take back my previous statement.

day 4 in the psych ward: i need to find those missing pieces i need to find them i need to find them i have been questioning everybody all the nurses all the doctors all the patients all the miscellaneous hospital staff but nobody knows anything. this is hopeless. i will never be able to overcome this trauma. my life is over

day 5 in the psych ward: it's so boring in here. without complete puzzles there's nothing to do except watch tv but the only channel they get is the local news. i begrudgingly watch out of nothing but all-encompassing ennui. but one of the stories is about the communal puzzle club and suddenly i am overcome with nostalgia. turns out there was a series of alleged poisonings attributed to that location. strychnine was found in three people so far, one of whom was myself. but the others didn't survive. this confirms my suspicion that i am in fact the chosen one

day 6 in the psych ward: with a renewed sense of purpose i will attempt to convince the doctors of my "sanity," but i also came to the realization that they don't care about sanity, they only care about sedation. they want to supress my passion, eradicate my truth, condition me to fall in line with the rest of the "sane" people. with that knowledge, i was able to tell them everything they wanted to hear. i acted polite, pretended i was cured, i even feigned complete disinterest in puzzles! it made my stomach boil but i did it, i convinced them, and just like that, i was free.

day 28 at the communal puzzle club: i don't know why everyone was so surprised to see me again, it's only natural that i'd come to finish what i started

(i know this is supposed to be day 27 at the communal puzzle club but day 27 was a monday so nothing happened) like what am i gonna say, "day 27 i sat alone in my studio apartment eating cereal and biding my time"

day 29 at the communal puzzle club: the communal puzzle club has been disbanded, the club manager has been arrested, and the whole place is swarming with cops. i watched as they hauled off a bunch of expensive looking printers and like a billion reams of paper and loaded them onto a big police truck.

apparently, the communal puzzle club was just a front for document forgery and counterfeit cash, and i had been inadvertently sabotaging them this entire time. which is sad because i support both of those things. but it also explains why they met 12 hours a day, 6 days a week and why they had their own building despite having no profit model and also why i was the only one who seemed to actually care about the puzzles. everyone else was too busy making fake passports to care.

in hindsight, i always knew they were all a bunch of casuals. but i didn't mind because they had so many excellent puzzles. I asked one of the officers if i could at least have the puzzles but he said they were already taken and locked away in the evidence room. the thought sickens me- all those puzzles, gathering dust, never to be assembled again. or maybe the pigs just took them for themselves! so they could have all the puzzles they want while the rest of us ordinary, law-abiding citizens have nothing to do except die of boredom!

the moral of the story is that we can never have nice things because of the fucking pigs. fuck the police.

the fuck did i just read?

my local library was having a puzzle swap and there was a puzzle with a sign next to it that said "please help with our communal puzzle" and i thought "wouldn't it be funny if i did the entire thing by myself" and then i did the entire thing by myself while rolling that thought around in my brain and as it rolled it started picking up all the various mold spores and fungus i keep up there. like a katamari

It's still sinking in that The Owl House was about a girl running away to a fantasy world, all because of the ripple effects of losing her father at an unfairly young age — only to eventually learn that the fantasy world itself was made of the bones, and the flesh, of a loving father who'd protected his child with one of his final actions, before dying and giving life to that fantasy world. And eventually, in his truly final action, even giving life to Luz herself. Luz ran away to the Boiling Isles, all because of a single book that her dad gave her — and unknowingly, she spent every day walking over ground that embodied parental loss. A world that was born from a parent's death, a parent who had to leave their child far too soon — and not just any child, but Luz's own new best friend, in all of this new magical world. And King and Luz were only ever brought together because of their fathers' deaths — before they even realized they had anything in common to grieve. Before they realized a reminder of that grief had been beneath their feet this whole time.

But, at the end of the day... their fathers both gave them parting gifts. Their fathers both gave them the key to come of age in a world full of people who'd care about them — maybe not the only world where they could've been happy, but a world they wouldn't want to imagine missing. Their fathers gave them the chance to meet each other. To understand each other. And, ultimately, to heal and grow up together. Until the ground beneath their feet stops feeling so heavy, like grief — and starts feeling lighter again, like a gift, and a happy memory.

Please call this recession the Trump Slump.

We need to put Trump's name on this.

if ever anything I wrote were to ever go viral, let it be this. Let everyone talk about the Trump Slump. I want to hear this term in the news.

Today I understood why Mr Bingley is important for 'Pride and Prejudice.' Of course I've heard that he's Mr Darcy's foil and he helps us see that Mr Darcy lacks manners. And probably we need him to see a man whose character trait is quickly deciding to leave a place and who might never come back, and who also - I don't know - can easily get under the influence of his friends.

And I have always seen him as a very insignificant side character, and I never understood why there was even a need for him; like why Jane Austen of all people would write such a lacking(?) side character. He is not really a commentary on something. He's just fickle.

And was there even a need for Mr Bingley & Jane's love story? They're basically 'love at first sight, destined for each other' and they look quite out of place among the other three couples -- Elizabeth and Mr Darcy, Lydia and Mr Wickham, Charlotte and Mr Collins -- that are all a commentary on love and society.

Today I understood that had there been no Mr Bingley Jane would've married Mr Collins out of obligation as the eldest sister and that would have been a very different book that didn't feel like such a happy story by the end of it (my Mom calls it a fairy tale), had only one of the sisters (Elizabeth) landed herself a love match.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is an undercurrent to Jane's story that is about her being an angel and that their love with Mr Bingley is a dream that rarely comes true, I don't know. But still, apparently Mr Bingley is not as inconsequential a character as he has always seemed to be.

Sorry to highjack your post with an essay, but there's actually a common misconception here that I really want to breakdown.

One of the things that it isn't easy to notice these days is that Jane and Bingley actually are a commentary on love and society in exactly the same way the other couples are. It just isn't as obvious because the expectations and discussion over how people are meant to behave when in love has vastly changed in two-hundred years.

Jane exemplifies a common standard for young gentlewomen of that era: be demure (but never cold), friendly (but not too friendly), reserved about your true emotions (but always pleasing to everyone), appear grateful for every civil interaction a gentleman offers you (but never seeking or desperate for them), etc. She's beautiful, yes, and unfailingly kind, but her 'perfection' for contemporary readers would've gone far beyond that.

Because in many ways, Jane is the perfect gentlewoman. All those impossible virtues of good sense and perfect goodness and eternal gratitude and elegant grace are united in her. And in the Jane and Bingley love story Austen asks the question of how that behaviour, however generally admirable, can function in reality and then explores some of the drawbacks.

We actually see Charlotte allude to this directly in chapter 6. When Lizzy is happy that "Jane united, with great strength of feeling, a composure of temper and a uniform cheerfulness of manner which would guard her from the suspicions of the impertinent," Charlotte famously rebuts:

This exchange isn't just iconic (and, in my opinion, a mark of Austen's genius for all it conveyed), it's a debate about society and its ideals vs the reality in practice. Since society has changed readers tend to see it purely as a commentary on Jane/ justification for why Darcy interpreted her the way he did/ foreshadowing for Charlotte's own choice, but it wasn't only that. It was calling out some downsides to women being perfectly composed at all times when the man they're in love with is a decent guy who cares about things like 'whether his affections are welcomed' and isn't so self-centred as to not have doubts over how someone who doesn't reveal much might actually feel. It's actually a testament to Bingley's character and general concern for others that he doesn't just assume that 'of course she likes me, she's polite and friendly to me,' when doubts are raised. You know who wouldn't have doubts? Arrogant and self-centred people whose priorities aren't others and think only about what they want. Though not directly said in the text, the Jane and Bingley temporary break-up does call into question whether behaving in this admirable way might actually push away the most considerate and thoughtful suitors.

And though I know modern readers are very prone to judging Bingley harshly for not returning quickly to Jane, keep in mind we live over two centuries later in a far more individual-focused society with different values. In the text Lizzy, who we all know has no qualms about being angry at others, ceases to be mad at Bingley almost as soon as she receives Darcy's explanation. He's not condemned by either her or the text for being persuaded that Jane was indifferent to him, and Lizzy actually comes to believe it's understandable.

I think another thing we've lost with the passage of time is just how bad the Bennets could be seen as. While Mr Bennet lives they're rich, top 0.2% rich for England in that era, and yet the daughters will have next to nothing for their class/upbringing and weren't taught many of the housekeeping/economic skills they'd need for a realistic future. I've talked more in depth about what they should have been saving according to contemporary accounts and done some maths here and here but the gist is they should've easily been six times as rich as they are. Let's not forget the lack of education too. I said it in one of those posts, and I'll say it again, if you knew a top 1% family who were constantly flirting with bankruptcy and 2/5 of their children were barely educated you wouldn't be wrong for thinking there were some serious problems in that family. Then there's the social vulgarity/silliness, but that translates much better to modern audiences so I won't go into that anymore than to say that decorum was a BIG DEAL back then and who you were 'connected with' could very literally affect your standing in society. Darcy and Bingley's sister's were snobbier about it than they should've been, but the core reasons for concern were actually valid. Even Lizzy very quickly saw the justice in Darcy's logic once presented with the facts so bluntly.

Bingley noticed these things, as everyone sensible did, but he's just too generous a person for that to matter enough to stop him from wanting to marry Jane. It was only being persuaded that she genuinely was indifferent to him that made him put aside his hopes.

We should also keep in mind that it wasn't just randoms who were doing the persuading, it was Bingley's best friend (who is used to believing himself an authority on others - a flaw he has to overcome in the course of the novel) and his sisters (whom everyone considered close friends of Jane and who would've seen her more than Bingley). Their motives were jaded by prejudice but for many contemporary readers these would've been the most reliable advisors anyone could have in matters like this.

Given the delicacy of the subject it's not like he could directly ask Jane herself until the actual proposal, or even begin acting more markedly and hope she responds in kind (the impropriety of which is similar to what we see with Marianna and Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility). Even when Lizzy knows Bingley liked Jane, knows that Jane still feels the same and suspecting that he does too, she doesn't so much as think about giving him a hint when she sees him again in Derbyshire. It simply wouldn't be proper, it's up to his intimates to speak with him about it. So, if Bingley wanted an outside opinion Darcy and his sisters were it; and, on paper, they're very good advisors on the topic of whether Jane liked him.

In most situations it would be a massive character flaw to think 'I don't care what all my closest family/friends/her friends say, I'm going to persist in thinking this girl likes me against their advice.' Keep in mind they knew each other for six weeks and he's never even been alone with Jane. His sisters have though. There's also a commentary in there on the moral pitfalls of influencing someone at all (which is explored in far more depth in Persuasion) but Bingley is never called wrong by the text or characters for not jumping to the assumption that his friend's being an arrogant snob and his sisters are bitchy snobs. A rich man who recognises he can be wrong is a good quality even today, and if we think in contemporary terms (and remember he's only 22) I don't think it's at all unreasonable that he was persuaded.

Which brings us to his whole personality: Bingley is in many ways a perfect gentleman socially. Charming and civil to everyone, uniformly good-tempered, and other than offending one or two young ladies by not asking them to dance, commits no social sins. He's also praised for being friendly and obliging - the latter being another trait which, as Jane Austen does with Jane's praised traits, gets explored via its weaknesses. Arguably the novel is one long exploration of the weaknesses of various traits, most notably those in its title, but this is already too long for that tangent.

Bingley's also very new money. Outright called the first gentleman (remembering that that word meant something very specific about education, dress, behaviour, poise, etc in that era compared to today) of his family, and his father was in trade. In a time where the middle merchant class was still establishing itself as worthy of being treated with respect by their 'betters' (and the mere fact of Darcy's close friendship with Bingley is the first clue that he's not as arrogant and snobby as Lizzy believes) his perfect upholding of an amiable ideal is a commentary in itself. Especially when we see Lady Catherine and Darcy, with their impeccable bloodlines, commit social faults arguably equal/worse to Mrs Bennet (herself not born into the gentry class and a negative example of social mobility to contrast Bingley's positive example) and Mr Collins. The highborn character who does embody appropriate social graces, Colonel Fitzwilliam, is interestingly not landed himself and needs an occupation.

Modern readers, without such a class based society which focused on social graces, are also less understanding of that 'obliging' aspect of Bingley's personality. But this was a time when, generally speaking, the richer and more important you are the more likely you are to get what you want and everyone else fell into line. It was so common that it wasn't even really critiqued heavily by Austen, some people were rich and had the means to do as they wished through money or social credit, and others followed if they wanted to be involved at all. We see this casually mentioned when Colonel Fitzwilliam says "I am at [Darcy's] disposal. He arranges the business just as he pleases;" which also helps us understand that the Colonel probably didn't have the income to own his own carriage or easily rent one to travel (which was EXPENSIVE). That context, of rich men not only ruling the world but also getting to decide what other people (in the Darcy/Colonel Fitzwilliam case, even older and higher-born people - and Bingley was younger and new to the gentry) do in their leisure time through virtue of their wealth, is the context we need to view Bingley in. Though Darcy was undoubtedly more important Bingley was still 2-2.5x richer than Mr Bennet and thus everyone else in the neighbourhood excepting his friend - and yet far from being the standard rich man who began dictating the social scene and choosing what to do without consideration for others, he was obliging. He matched what others were doing, had consideration for them, participated as though grateful to be invited instead of entitled to it. His obliging nature is part of what sets him up as a true gentleman and far more worthy than others who only adopt some of the social graces and miss how it's meant to apply to their whole character.

His personality is actually a very interesting study in what makes a gentleman a gentleman, and argues that the real qualities which matter have nothing at all to do with connections or family history. It's also an analysis of what obliging personalities can fall victim to, even when they're sensible, as Bingley is said to be. His whole character ties in directly (as does Wickham's more overtly) with Darcy and Lizzy's own journeys with true gentlemanlike behaviour and character. It's just not in a way which is at all easily noticeable to modern eyes without a background understanding of the society he functioned in, nor is it something directly depicted in the adaptions.

Anyway, sorry for the hastily typed essay and I hope I've convinced you that Bingley and Jane are an exploration of love and society just as the other couples are, and also a rather pointed social commentary on behavioural standards and changing class lines through social mobility. For all that Jane Austen's writing feels comforting and sometimes quite verbose, she actually fit an immense amount of commentary and meaning into every aspect of her books. Jane and Bingley are absolutely no different.

I love a good hijacking of a post, especially when it's as thoughtful and grounded in historical knowledge as this one is.

I'm not the first to mention this, but one bit that I thought was really clever in Steven Universe is the ways in which the show subtly justifies the cartoonism of the principle cast always wearing the same outfit for ease-of-animation purposes. The gems are a gimme in that they're all hardlight-projections, and even before that's solidified as a plot point they're otherworldly and superheroic enough that you don't really think to question it. But Steven canonically just owns hundreds and hundreds of those star shirts, which are leftover merchandise from his father's fizzled-out career as a rock star. Into which you can read a whole bunch of other stuff if you really want to, right? And I do want to. It's reflective of Greg's misplaced optimism that he got hundreds of those made in the first place, and it's a benign but visible example of how Steven's life is shaped by the knock-on effects of decisions his parents made before he was even alive. He's got his mother's superpowers and he's wearing his father's shirts.

🔵🌎🌍🌏🔵

none planet with aotearoa

this is the opposite of all those maps that cut it off

“Some years ago, I was stuck on a crosstown bus in New York City during rush hour. Traffic was barely moving. The bus was filled with cold, tired people who were deeply irritated—with one another; with the rainy, sleety weather; with the world itself. Two men barked at each other about a shove that might or might not have been intentional. A pregnant woman got on, and nobody offered her a seat. Rage was in the air; no mercy would be found here.

But as the bus approached Seventh Avenue, the driver got on the intercom. “Folks,” he said, “I know you’ve had a rough day and you’re frustrated. I can’t do anything about the weather or traffic, but here’s what I can do. As each one of you gets off the bus, I will reach out my hand to you. As you walk by, drop your troubles into the palm of my hand, okay? Don’t take your problems home to your families tonight—just leave ‘em with me. My route goes right by the Hudson River, and when I drive by there later, I’ll open the window and throw your troubles in the water. Sound good?”

It was as if a spell had lifted. Everyone burst out laughing. Faces gleamed with surprised delight. People who’d been pretending for the past hour not to notice each other’s existence were suddenly grinning at each other like, is this guy serious?

Oh, he was serious.

At the next stop—just as promised—the driver reached out his hand, palm up, and waited. One by one, all the exiting commuters placed their hand just above his and mimed the gesture of dropping something into his palm. Some people laughed as they did this, some teared up—but everyone did it. The driver repeated the same lovely ritual at the next stop, too. And the next. All the way to the river.

We live in a hard world, my friends. Sometimes it’s extra difficult to be a human being. Sometimes you have a bad day. Sometimes you have a bad day that lasts for several years. You struggle and fail. You lose jobs, money, friends, faith, and love. You witness horrible events unfolding in the news, and you become fearful and withdrawn. There are times when everything seems cloaked in darkness. You long for the light but don’t know where to find it.

But what if you are the light? What if you’re the very agent of illumination that a dark situation begs for?

That’s what this bus driver taught me—that anyone can be the light, at any moment. This guy wasn’t some big power player. He wasn’t a spiritual leader. He wasn’t some media-savvy “influencer.” He was a bus driver—one of society’s most invisible workers. But he possessed real power, and he used it beautifully for our benefit.

When life feels especially grim, or when I feel particularly powerless in the face of the world’s troubles, I think of this man and ask myself, What can I do, right now, to be the light? Of course, I can’t personally end all wars, or solve global warming, or transform vexing people into entirely different creatures. I definitely can’t control traffic. But I do have some influence on everyone I brush up against, even if we never speak or learn each other’s name. How we behave matters because within human society everything is contagious—sadness and anger, yes, but also patience and generosity. Which means we all have more influence than we realize.

No matter who you are, or where you are, or how mundane or tough your situation may seem, I believe you can illuminate your world. In fact, I believe this is the only way the world will ever be illuminated—one bright act of grace at a time, all the way to the river.“

–Elizabeth Gilbert

I think it’s time this got another airing.

I’ve been thinking recently about how a key aspect of Steven Universe is that Steven is placed in the narrative position of what might normally be filled by a standard fantasy-hero-shounen-protagonist-guy, while EVERYTHING about Steven as a character is all about going in basically the exact OPPOSITE direction of that archetype. To the point where the one time he actually TRIES acting like some typical shounen-protag to solve his problems in Future, it’s presented as this gross, twisted perversion of his character that goes horribly, HORRIBLY wrong. Basically, the show makes it clear that Steven trying to act like your standard ‘cool, badass anime hero guy’ is very much a BAD and WRONG thing. Like in anime terms, Steven is essentially a Magical Girl placed in a position that was meant for a Shounen Hero. Or in a more specific reference building off of the show’s numerous references to Dragon Ball Z, Steven essentially represents a take on Gohan who’s kindness and pacifism are ultimately allowed to be presented and emphasized as a strength rather than a weakness.

Yet the flipside of all this is that even in their few appearances, has anyone else noticed that Stevonnie shows quite a few of these ‘cool, badass anime hero guy’ traits? They have a cool sword, they race cars, they fight space battles in a starfighter, they get badass fight scenes like getting to 1v1 Jasper and get to say cool one-liners. And the funny thing is, NONE of these are ever presented as somehow ‘wrong’ for the character. Heck, going off of the same references to Dragon Ball Z, Stevonnie has a bunch of design similarities to Future Trunks of all characters, one of THE iconic ‘cool, badass anime hero guys’.

And I think that’s really interesting.

Like in-universe, it says some interesting things about how Fusion works. That Steven himself trying to act like a cool, badass anime hero guy is a BAD thing because it leads him to start rejecting many of the core aspects of who he is as a person, namely his kindness and empathy.

Whereas Stevonnie is their OWN person, distinct from Steven and can exhibit these traits just fine because they clearly got them from Connie. They clearly haven’t abandoned or rejected any of the core aspects of Steven such as his kindness and empathy, they just ALSO have all this other stuff from Connie as well and can exhibit these traits without actually losing anything. They are after all, everything from Steven and Connie and more.

And narratively, I think it makes for a fun inversion. Steven represents this big subversive take on the typical fantasy hero archetype by being this young BOY with a big, heroic destiny who is defined by his kindness, empathy, emotions, a general disdain for solving problems through fighting and generally rejecting the typical ‘cool, badass, anime hero guy’ traits.

So it’s actually rather fitting that it is the non-binary, intersex, very-much-NOT-cisgender-male, fusion Stevonnie who ends up getting to do more traditional ‘cool, badass, anime hero guy’ stuff. Who in turn got much of those traits NOT from Steven, but from his best-friend/partner/girlfriend Connie.

And I just think that’s pretty cool, you know? Particularly when imagining a permafused Stevonnie. Like I think its fun to imagine an alternate take on the later seasons of the show, or just post-series, with a permafused Stevonnie doing more traditional anime-protagonist stuff that would otherwise feel out of place with Steven, but doesn’t feel out of place with them.

For example, Steven never went through any kind of big ‘training arc’ like so many anime heroes because that just doesn’t fit who he is. Steven is not a ‘fighter’, he always tries to talk things out before things turn to combat. So it makes sense that he wouldn’t directly pursue training to become a better fighter on his own.

But Connie DID. And of course that wasn’t presented in and of itself a bad thing. Which as an aside, is interesting for Steven as his joining was more to support Connie rather being presented as something he needed to do himself.

And speaking of fighting, this is another place where the differences between Steven and Connie make Stevonnie in turn all the more INTERESTING. Because whereas Steven isn’t a fighter, Connie very much IS. The symbolic sword to Steven’s shield.

Now where this gets interesting is that in practice, Connie generally follows Steven’s lead. We see a number of instances wherein Connie likely wants to or even is full-on about to launch into a fight, but backs down because Steven wants to talk things out. Connie may be a fighter, but she also generally defers to Steven.

But what happens when these two aspects are coexisting in the same person? What happens when Connie’s preference towards fighting isn’t deferring to Steven’s preference towards non-violence, but is rather exhibited right alongside it? And because of that is seen by Stevonnie as a much more valid option?

What does Stevonnie’s response to conflict look like when they’re much more of a fighter like Connie, while still retaining Steven’s intrinsic kindness and empathy?

Personally, I imagine Stevonnie actually being a fair bit like Ruby Rose, ie; someone who often tries to talk things out, while also not hesitating to jump into a fight if people aren’t willing to negotiate. Perhaps even reading the situation/people enough to get a preemptive strike off.

And all that is just one aspect of what I think makes Stevonnie so compelling as a character.

sometimes, in the small hours of the night, when connie’s feeling wistful or depressed, she’ll think back to the time she hung from an alien-forged sword buried in the shell of a mech/spaceship a thousand feet in the air, and she’ll remember the boundless confidence with which she told steven she’d be “right behind him” about her imminent trip up the vertical surface of something actively trying to swat her.

and she’ll go “what the fuck.  my life is awesome and I feel awesome again but what the fuck”

Okay, I was not expecting this at all and I have to admit, I have not listened to any music from Chappell Roan before, my fault and that is going to change...but this is hauntingly beautiful and it's beautiful to see so many people come together to do something for not only themselves, but for this video too.

This needs to be shared everywhere really, it really is beautiful.

I know this song well but hadn't listened to it in a few months, and this version just made me cry and made me think about various queer regrets and frustrations I had during the era I grew up in. It means so much to see people come together to sing this.

Sir Terry Pratchett awakens. A skeleton stands at his bedside, wearing a long black robe. He sits up. “Well, hang on, let me get my hat,” he tells it.

The skeleton reaches into its robe. From abyssal depths it produces a heavy book bound in sheets of lead and night. It is the kind of book that gets stolen by a rugged adventurer from a temple with more spike-traps than the average house of worship contains. It is the kind of book to which the word “tome” might properly be applied. Frost forms on its pages from the lingering chill of the void. 

The skeleton coughs once and holds the book out to the man sitting on the bed.

WOULD YOU SIGN THIS? it asks. BIG FAN.

Oh this must be reblogged, 10 years later

ten years. also known as a day, and an eternity.

straight men have beauty standards for men that are completely different than the beauty standards women and gay men have for men and then they get mad when they conform to the beauty standards other podcast bros set for them and women still don’t find them attractive

while you were busy arguing about phrenology on Twitter, lamenting your weak jawline and making fun of dudes who don’t go to the gym, beautiful fat polyamorous men with nerdy personalities were busy snatching up the baddest bitches in your town. c’est la vie.

There's a tiktok trend called "hear me out cakes" where you print out pictures of characters and actors that you basically have to justify wanting to fuck before taping it on a tooth pick and put it on a cake.

Most of the men who do this challenge will pick the fish from Shark Tales, Nala from Lion King (this was the one he actually had to fight for his life over), Shego and actors slightly older than 30 there was one guy who had Korra was his hear me out.

Meanwhile the girls are fucking xenomorphs, mathematical equations, the concept of Vine, Bananas in Pajamas and the Peanut M&M. One girl sprayed another girl with a water bottle because she put Bowser on cake and he was too basic.

If the trend has taught me anything is that girls will fuck literally anything as long as it has a charming personality and a sardonic smile. If you can't convince a girl to fuck you when she's got a centaur from fallout on her smash cake it has nothing to do with not having a jawline or a six pack it's because you're an insufferable human being.

I think a vital component of this is not only that the straight men have their own male beauty standards that nearly no one else agrees with, but also that these standards are actively detrimental to their stated goals of being attractive to other people.

Like few things are less attractive in a man than achieving or even just attempting to achieve the straight man's ideal of masculine sex appeal. Watching it play out online is like seeing a guy who is taking dating advice from a bunch of raccoons who are like, yeah women love it when you stink of garbage. Get your garbage stink game up. If that doesn't work then the problem is definitely feminism.

here I would insert, if I could find it, that one webcomic strip from the other decade, the one where she says Batman is a (straight) man's power fantasy, and then she redraws Batman as a (straight) woman's desire-slash-be-desired-by fantasy; the person she's addressing says something about his being uncomfortable with that image, and she says, "Welcome to the background radiation of my life"

It was a Shortpacked strip. All the links I could find to the original are dead (I'm guessing Shortpacked moved databases) but I found the image:

I'm not an expert here, but there's a similar thing going on with plants. Except instead of protein, it's polysaccharides like cellulose. We can digest a few of them as delicious, delicious starches, but others can't be absorbed by the intestine, and wind up as dietary fiber.

A lot of herbivores have incredibly long digestive tracts to ferment those polysaccharides into something digestible (this is why cows have so many stomachs). Humans can do a little of that--that's why beans make you fart. It's the gut bacteria breaking down polysaccharides and releasing gas in the process. Pills like Beano contain an enzyme to break down the polysaccharides before the bacteria get to it.

Anyway, all that is to say that, given we can't break down cellulose like a cow can, and since plant cells are wrapped up in a shell of cellulose, cooking breaks down the cellulose that encases plant cells enough that we can get access to whatever is inside (like vitamins, or more delicious, delicious starches).

not to derail this but it’s posts like these with such easy to digest (sorry) and passionate explanations to scientific questions that pushed me into the science education field. we might rag on some of the science side of tumblr posts from 2014 but actually that shit fucking slaps and comes in handy when teaching “complex” topics to people. the way this post is written is how i teach.

Science communication is a genuine field of study that includes “meeting the public where they are.” If you’re an instructor at a planetarium or aquarium whose audience is primarily young children, you’ll learn and use the kind of jokes and references that little kids like. Whatever it takes to get the messages across. It might hurt you to compare things to Minecraft (or, 10 years ago, wincingly, Harry Potter) but your ego doesn’t matter in the situation. Your mission is to make a large amount of people feel connection to the natural world, and clown damage is just what you suffer for your cause. People learn best when they can relate topics to their existing knowledge, when they’re laughing, and when they feel invited in. It’s genuinely more important that people learn and connect than how you personally feel about delivering it. They won’t even remember you - you disappear in this - but they’ll remember how you shifted their world a bit or gave them a new piece of knowledge.

I am not exaggerating when I say that building imagination, connection and relationships with the natural world are the most radicalising and revolutionary things we can do against climate change and environmental damage. If you successfully teach 7 children about their place in nature so they never forget, you have done more for the future of the planet than you will ever know.

When historians in particular complain that the public are always saying “I never learned about X in school!” And the historians sneer on tumblr that ACTUALLY, if the public cared to find and read their ACADEMIC THESIS they would KNOW that historians talk about it all the time…. I even saw one post where the historian grudgingly admitted that “the public will accept outreach about science, because it’s socially important to learn about pandemics and climate change” but then continued that the public lazily prefer to abuse historians than simply go into an academic archive and read 7 journals. “Why do the public prefer to gobble up history misinformation on tumblr and spurn our academic output, guess they’re just stupid and uneducated” my FRIENDS have you put your thesis on tumblr in the same style as the misinformation, or even better developed a newer and more appealing style ??

If you have knowledge you suffered to gain and would suffer to protect, may as well put on your clown shoes and get roasted by sharing it