one of the most frustrating things about the neil gaiman situation (and others like it) is people who were fans immediately moving to a different person to idolise ('well, at least we still have x author' or 'please tell me y author is still a good person') and in this situation specifically, 'terry pratchett would be furious'. no!!! you do not know!!!you have no idea whether terry pratchett or any author you like was/is a predator! you cannot take a situation in which a man's public persona as a feminist and supporter of women allowed him to prey on vulnerable women without suspicion and then look at all the other men who portray themselves as good people and say 'well, these ones are still okay though.' just stop idolising celebrities!!!!!!!
hi, a lot of you need a perspective reset
- the average human lifespan globally is 70+ years
- taking the threshold of adulthood as 18, you are likely to spend at least 52 years as a fully grown adult
- at the age of 30 you have lived less than one quarter of your adult life (12/52 years)
- 'middle age' is typically considered to be between 45-65
- it is extremely common to switch careers, start new relationships, emigrate, go to college for the first or second time, or make other life-changing decisions in middle age
- it's wild that I even have to spell it out, but older adults (60+) still have social lives and hobbies and interests.
- you can still date when you get old. you can still fuck. you can still learn new skills, fashionable, be competitive. you can still gossip, you can still travel, you can still read. you can still transition. you can still come out.
- young doesn't mean peaked. you're inexperienced in your 20s! you're still learning and practicing! you're developing social skills and muscle memory that will last decades!
- there are a million things to do in the world, and they don't vanish overnight because an imaginary number gets too big
Carlos mood ✌️🥺
OKAY HEAR ME OUT:
All of these edgy science fiction / fantasy novels about overthrowing evil empires and then becoming the very thing that you sought to destroy and the main character ending up as bad as the regime they overthrew and all that, you know?
You could very easily make a dramatised version of the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, transplant it into generic fantasy evil empire world, change the names of the historical figures to fictional names, and all the tumblrinas would eat that up.
Picture this: Napoleon Our protagonist is born the second child in a large family on Corsica generic fantasy island, is sent to a military academy in France evil empire, and begins to rise through the ranks of the army. A revolution occurs, in which the French evil empire monarchy is overthrown, and our protagonist, a supporter of the revolution, fights for the revolutionary government against royalist uprisings and the first coalition other evil empires. Along the way, our protagonist becomes increasingly powerful, as well as being an absolute slut. After a series of military campaigns, our protagonist, seeing the corruption of the directory new evil government, stages a coup and becomes first consul generic fantasy leader. However, over the course of the book, our protagonist has acquired a huge ego and lost many morals, and ends up themself the emperor of France fantasy kingdom. "Morally grey" shenanigans ensue. (Of course, our protagonist would have many many love interests, such as Josephine de Beauharnais hot milf, Jean-Andoche Junot hot best friend, and Tsar Alexander I enemies-to-lovers-to-enemies-again.) (Main character would be characterised as being the most pathetic little person to ever exist who is frequently bullied for being quirky and not-like-other-girls)
Descriptions of Napoleon’s personality by Adam Zamoyski
“He was kind by nature, quick to assist and reward. He found comfortable jobs and granted generous pensions to former colleagues, teachers, and servants, even to a guard who had shown sympathy during his incarceration after the fall of Robespierre. He was generous to the son of Marbeuf, promoted his former commander at TouIon Dugommier and looked after his family when he died, did the same for La Poype and du Teil, and even found the useless Carteaux a post with a generous pension. Whenever he encountered hardship or poverty, he disbursed lavishly. He could be sensitive, and there are countless verifiable acts of solicitude and kindness that testify to his genuinely wishing to make people happy.”
“He was most at his ease with children, soldiers, servants, and those close to him, in whom he took a personal interest, asking them about their health, their families, and their troubles. He would treat them with a joshing familiarity, teasing them, calling them scoundrels or nincompoops; whenever he saw his physician, Dr. Jean-Nicolas Corvisart, he would ask him how many people he had killed that day.”
“He possessed considerable charm and only needed to smile for people to melt. He could be a delightful companion when he adopted an attitude of bonhomie. He was a good raconteur, and people loved listening to him speak on some subject that interested him, or tell his ghost stories, for which he would sometimes blow out the candles. He could grow passionate when discussing literature or, more rarely, his feelings.”
I still need to hear some ghost stories
tried watching the new queen charlotte series but was immediately put off by the ridiculous anti-corset propaganda, so get ready for another rant.
first of all, this is the georgian era so what she's wearing are called /stays/ - corsets are a victorian invention. why do we still not know this in 2023 when period productions have remained consistently popular throughout the years? the concept of tighlacing (the goal being a reduction of the waist) is also victorian and was not the norm at all and v much an extreme practice. this understanding of history is so superficial, it's as if an alien were to open up People magazine and conclude that all human women resort to butt injections and lip fillers to stay with the fashion of the times. also, no, you cannot tighlace in stays to obtain a waist reduction because they are shaped like a funnel (picture 1 = long stays, 2 = short regency stays, 3 = corset)
charlotte goes on to complain about how dangerous whalebone is and that it might kill her if she makes the wrong move. what the actual fuck? whalebone was actually the very best material to use for this because it was sturdy yet flexible and allowed the /stays/ to completely and comfortably mold around a woman's unique body shape. one of the reasons why today it is v difficult to replicate the same effect in corsetry is because we do not have access to whalebone (killing whales is not cool for obvious reasons) so corset-makers have to resort to other materials like plastic or metal, which CAN break. whereas whalebone doesn't really break as easily. furthermore, stays/corsets were NEVER worn on bare skin, but with a chemise/shift underneath.
why did women in the past resort to this type of undergarment, you ask? well, apart from the fact that women need bust support, the stays also serve the purpose of allowing all the many skirts and petticoats to be placed comfortably onto the waist. you try piling on that much fabric around your bare waist and see how you like it and if you can even carry it all around without it cutting into your stomach.
clothes throughout human history did cater to the popular fashions of the time, yes, but they also reflected the technological limitations and there was thus a practical aspect to it. this is a time before elastic bands, before industrialization and fast fashion, clothes are v difficult to make, everything is done by hand, so a lot of care is put into preserving them, because they are /expensive/ and labour intensive. you don't want your fancy outergarments to get ruined so you wear a lot of undergarments to absorb your bodily fluids since those are easier to make and don't have to look "pretty", can be stained and patchy etc. again, why do you need so many layers in the first place? because this is a time before comfortable heating, with poorly isolated and drafty houses, and it's bloody cold otherwise.
the third reason why that monologue was so dumb is because CHARLOTTE is the reason regency court dress was so preposterous. long story short, in a few decades, the fashionable silhouette changes wildly from the late 1700s to the 1810s.
the regency waistline was much higher and the gowns were much more flowy and unstructured than the late georgian ones (what's commonly known as the empire waistline). the long stays of the late 1700s were now replaced with short stays that really were similar to modern bras. the scene in the first season of bridgerton where they squeeze penelope's sister into what looks like a pair of long stays (?) is bonkers bc no one would wear a waist-constricting boned undergarment under a regency dress. why would they? the natural waist is not even emphasized in any way. this is just another reason to peddle the women-were-oppressed-by-their-lingerie agenda. so if charlotte really hated long stays that much, regency would really have been her time to shine, right? wrong. the woman loved the fashions of her youth so much she forced everyone who came to court to still comply to them, which is why we get the absolutely atrocious regency court dresses - essentially a combination of the georgian style with side panniers, but with an empire waistline.
yeah, this is how daphne SHOULD have looked like when she was presented at court in front of charlotte. i can understand why the showrunners decided to just leave her in a regency silhouette because this is ugly af. but, anyway, queen charlotte is the last person on earth to be complaining about how uncomfortable stays are.
creative licence aside, the reason this pisses me off is because it is SUCH lazy storytelling. the show wants us to know charlotte is a spunky pseudo-feminist character so the easiest way to do that is to have her complain about the evil 'corset' trying to kill her. it is so profoundly ahistorical and does nothing to contribute to the conversation about women's true problems and true limitations during that time. instead of genuinely exploring social history and women's actual lived experiences, we are STILL, in the year of our lord 2023, diverting the discourse towards fabricated issues that never existed in the first place.
the reasons actresses complain about boned underwear in interviews are manifold. costume designers are very overworked, they have to produce clothes for hundreds of people in a very short time, so they simply do not have the time or resources to construct corsets/stays that fit the actresses like they are supposed to. in the past, these garments were made individually for every person and completely to their own requirements. they also make these actresses wear the boning on BARE skin to look extra sexy to the audience or to emphasize their oppression - that never happened, a shift was always worn underneath (hello dakota fanning scene in the alienist??).
moreover, they lace them up until they constrict their ribcages - these women are already super thin and their bodies cannot support more reduction - instead of relying on the historical practices of padding and illusion. nowadays, body parts are what's fashionable - that's why so many resort to fat transfers or breast implants or starving themselves to achieve a flat stomach. in the past, anyone of any size could have accomplished the fashionable silhouette because they had a wide array of accouterments to plop underneath their garments - panniers, bustles, hoop skirts, padding of any sort. it didn't matter how big your waist was, you just padded other areas until you achieved the desired shape. fat women wore corsets/stays, too. working women, who did a lot of physical labour, did the same. how were they able to perform all of their tasks if they were incapable of moving or breathing? even today, people wear medical corsets all the time.
TLDR the media's obsession with portraying modern women as so liberated because they wear bras instead of "patriarchal" underwear is so tedious.
EDIT: Some very basic chronological tadpoles to make this easier to place within historical context. "Georgian" is used to denote the 18th+ century when Great Britain was ruled by several kings named George, so roughly 1714-1830. Within this interval, we refer to the Regency period as encompassing the regency of Prince George, future King George IV, when his father George III was incapacitated by mental illness. The official political regency took place during 1811-1820, but culturally speaking, this was extended to roughly the end of the 18th century up to maybe 1830 or 1837. This is the time period of Napoleonic wars and Jane Austen novels, so all her heroines should normally wear Regency styles. Think "empire waistline" as in Imperial France and Napoleon. The Victorian era (and its corsets) follows throughout the rest of the 19th century. Queen Charlotte was a contemporary of Marie Antoinette's, so they should be dressed in similar fashions (robe à la française vs robe à la anglais).
In what way was Napoleon personally manipulative? (That is, outside of politics) And are there any anecdotes depicting it?
I just read an old book on google books called "Napoleon's Opera Glass." Its thesis is that Napoleon loved the theater and was theatrical himself. The author gives many examples of Napoleon's behavior where he's being an actor. This was not only with political figures.
I think Napoleon believed he had superior knowledge of people, that he could influence them very easily using different techniques: his charm, charisma, inspirational with the troops, his incredible memory for facts, by intense interrogations, disdain and contempt, lies, insults, or his anger. His charm was the most effective since it got some who hated him to change their views after meeting him in person. Other things like his anger only pissed people off and made them think of ways to use reverse psychology on him.
I think it was just Napoleon's nature to manipulate. He wasn't being evil. Manipulation is pretty common behavior.
Napoleon's Opera Glass by Lewis Rosenthal
I've got a reference and I will post here in a bit as an edit to this reblog, right now I'm not conscious. But the old man I'm working on translating has some words to say about him. And I know that you guys know which old man I'm speaking about.
Okay. I posted it before and was just going to link to it but..
Réflexions sur Bonaparte: A dix-huit ans il se croyoit un grand homme, dans ce cas rarement on le devient. Il est des hommes qu'il ne faut juger que d'après les résultats; ils perdraient tout, si on scrutoit leur conduite dans les moyens d'y parvenir. Bonaparte est de ce nombre. Turenne a acquis la gloire parcequ'il combatit contre Montécueuli (sic: Montecuccoli) le plus grand général du siècle. Bonaparte a obtenu sa célébrité en combat, contre tout ce que la maison d'autriche avoit de généraux imbéciles.
Il est ainsi que tous les hommes dans le malheur docile et traitable dans la fortune un peu moins praticable. est-il aimé? -comment le seroit-il? il n'aime personne. mais il croit y supléer en se formant des créatures par des avancements et des présents. Il prend dit il sur son compte toutes les fautes commises devant Acre, il ne sauroit s'en dispenser. est-il méchant?– non, mais c'est parceque les vices viennent d'ânerie, et qu'il n'est point un ane. Il ne sait ni organiser, ni administrer, et pourtant voulant tout faire, il organise et administre, de là des desordres, des caspillages en tous genres, de là le dénuement absolue, cette misère meme au milieu de l'abondance, jamais de Plan fixé tout va par bonds et par sauts, le jour regle les affaires du hour, Il pretend croire a la fatalité.
Quel est donc sa grande qualité ? car enfin c'est un homme extraordinaire. c'est d'oser et d'oser encore et il va dans cet art jusqu'a delà de la témérité. flagornerie, délations, espionnages..
(translated)
Reflections on Bonaparte:
At eighteen, he thought he was a big deal, but that's rarely the case. There are guys you can only judge by their results; they'd lose everything if you looked into how they got there. Bonaparte is one of those. Turenne gained glory because he fought against Montecuccoli, the greatest general of the century. Bonaparte got his fame in battle, against all the stupid generals Austria had. That's how it is; all men are easy to deal with in misfortune, but a bit less so in good times. Is he liked? - How could he be? He doesn't love anyone. But he thinks he makes up for it by creating followers through promotions and gifts. He claims all the mistakes made in front of Acre are on him, and he can't escape that. Is he mean? - No, but that's because vices come from foolishness, and he's no fool.
He doesn't know how to organize or manage, yet wanting to do everything, he organizes and manages, leading to chaos and all kinds of waste, resulting in absolute poverty, this misery even in the midst of abundance, never a fixed plan, everything goes in leaps and bounds, the day manages the affairs of the hour, he pretends to believe in fate.
So what is his great quality? After all, he is an extraordinary man. It's daring and daring again, and he goes in this art beyond recklessness.
Flattery, denunciations, espionage…
And there you have it. From the mouth of Kleber, who had only known Bonaparte since late December 1797/January 1798, and this was about a year into knowing Bonaparte. A man such as Kleber, with a quick and agile mind, and a good judgement of the men he lead, served under and dealt with, for me, is as good of a judgement as anything.
I am no fan of Bonaparte and never will be - that's my caveat. He was a manipulative little bugger, perhaps driven that way by his family and his mother, or his culture, or a combination of all of the above. His ambition knew no bounds, and he would stop at nothing to achieve his goals. Is that admirable? That depends on your view of the world as a whole. For me, (and for Kleber, obviously) a man who would stop at nothing and stoop so low as to manipulate and use others to achieve his goals of power and leadership is no man worth being called a leader.
Just my few sous' worth, that is.
treating "historians" not only as this unified group but also as a coherent socio-political entity w unified ideas, ideals, goals and methods is actually the reddest possible flag. thats a tell-tale sign that this person doesnt know what the fuck theyre talking about. capital h Historians arent lying to u. capital h Historians arent hiding stuff from u, they dont want u to believe anything, bc Historians isnt an organization or a political affiliation. u know the old saying, 2 jews, 3 opinions? historians r like that too
"Historians dont want u to know *historical figure* was gay!1!!" n its in the 'personal life' section of said figure's wikipedia page
I keep thinking of how little we saw of Lien in the end of League of Dragons(or the final trilogy in general) like
Lien what are you thinking right now
Princess pledges revenge as in "mere death is too trivial, only total despair will do" in Black Powder War, right? Disgrace, isolation, poverty, purposelessness. Which describes Lien without her prince pretty well. Prime 'gonna bring you to my level' kind of spite, she even tells him exactly that.
But like, she couldn't give Temeraire any of that, could she? Temeraire and Laurence brought all of those upon themselves, and for all the right reasons! Look how they suffered all of that, disgrace and banishment et cetera, not because of her machinations but because they were doing something right. She can't take what's freely given already, to a power other than her(by which I mean Britain.) She even owes them a life-debt for it! No, while griviences must fester, her revenge is unachievable now.
Except, this is fine. No, really. This doesn't matter, whatever she might be telling herself(I'm not really sure how self-aware she is.) Because revenge as one's purpose in life - that's for someone who lost everything, who only has heartache to fuel their will. That's Lien who carved her poem at the border, who lost her one and only anchor.
But she changed - she had to change, because time does that. Living, love, does that. I think she did learn to love another(and that isn't hard really, Napoleon has like 24 Charisma stats and none of that albino/dragon prejudice sh*t.) Revenge isn't her priority now - Napoleon is. Although she might've told herself that there needn't be any distinction between the two, sometime before the whole traitor business, the scales tipped. Like, the egg situation in League of Dragons is very loud in saying this. That wasn't for revenge, that was all for Napoleon's benefit. Temeraire's distress is just a bonus.
So I imagine Lien to have been graceful in her defeat, not just because she's a graceful princess in general, but because of the same reasons as Napoleon. If revenge was still her priority I bet her actions would've spoken bit differently. She got her vow of vengeance as a self-fulfilling prophecy - nation cast down, allies drawn away, to live in some dark and lonely corner of the earth - but that's okay. Well, not okay, not really, but that's not the most important thing.
I'm sad that I didn't get to see Lien much at Napoleon's defeat. But I think I get why she didn't need a full tirade or anything(although I really would've liked a scene really.)
And I hope Lien achieves some peace of mind. Not saying she needs a happy ending, but that she might be content, even as she is.
Is she a "forgotten woman of history" or is this just the first time you've personally heard about her?
historical inaccuracies in period dramas are okay as long as i like them
they are, however, punishable by death if i don’t