#Anti pattern development

[firefox-enthusiast]

Oh and some of it moves and some of it plays sounds, and you do not know which is which.

“Enjoy Websurfing” ⌘ Digital real estate, mostly occupied by squatters

[bitter-hibiscus]

The real truth is that every single Jason Todd ship exists only for his benefit, and not his partner's. It's not just Jayroy, though that may be the most extreme example of it alongside jaytalia. Any character who is romantically involved with Jason has to be bastardized to some level, either because their morality would make it impossible for them to be with Jason (Roy, Kyle, Kara, Steph, Barbara, etc) or because Jason's character would go entirely against what their character needs/is working towards (Rose, Artemis, Kori, Slade, etc). It's always about what Jason needs and what Jason could get from that potential relationship, because he doesn't really... have anything to offer. Jason as Red Hood centers his story in violence and self-isolation. Even in his current The Hill run, where he's learning to trust people yada-yada, he's lonely. Because he chooses to be. And that's why every Jason Todd ship feels forced if you're a fan of whatever partner of choice, because Jason isn't at a point of himself and his life where he can offer anything in a relationship. Idk word vomit sorry

[nieuwe-secession]

The glamour halloween pattern (still at work)

[beecass]

bitch, gay people are allowed to express sexual desires. it was a joke, stfu about it, christ

i never said "gay people aren't allowed to express sexual desires" LOL and yes it was a joke tho it was a very unfortunate joke bc they could've written those "expressions of sexual desire" in any other form but chose to do it in the middle of a conversation about trauma with father figures right after bobby almost dies like.... i could keep talking about it as much as i want but if you don't want to read it just block or scroll idk 😬😬

[apotelesmaa]

I think going 22 years thinking the anxiety was a non issue and I had zero issues with perfectionism was really funny actually… another win for the “I’m normal and healthy and regular” category.

[historicity-was-already-taken]

I hate what the Israeli government is doing but I'm scared of contributing to the rise in anti-semitism in the US. I'm not Jewish and not super keyed in to anti-semitism. Obviously, anyone talking shit about the Jewish people is someone I should fight, but there are things I should watch out for even when they say "Israel," right? What kind of rhetoric should I be on the lookout for?

What makes this hard, is that there is no collective Jewish take on this. There are some Jews who would tell you that any criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. There are other Jews who would tell you that Jewish support for the modern state is antithetical to the values at the core of our ethics and faith.

Both of those types of Jewish thinkers follow this blog, as do Jews holding views everywhere in between.

So what I'm going to tell you isn't The Jewish Stance on this, but the stance I've developed as a Modern Jewish historian who also happens to be a Jewish person with leftist politics.

Here is a list of narratives and rhetorical patterns to watch out for:

-individuals or spaces which view jews as inherently unworthy of trust, and require them to consistently prove that they are a "Good Jew"

-rhetoric which continuously singles out Israeli human and civil rights abuses, while failing to hold other states committing equal or much larger scale abuses to the same standards

-speech which implies that the Jews can fit neatly into the role of "white colonizer"

-visual languages which super-impose Nazi imagery over Jewish symbols

-Blood Libel rhetoric, which accuses Israel of using the blood or murdered Palestinian babies for its bread, or harvesting Palestinian organs for the black market. This type of rhetoric has been circulating the western world for literal centuries, and it always ends with Jews being expelled and/or burnt at the stake.

And this is kind of where the classic "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" porn definition comes in. Sometimes someone screaming about "The Zionists" is someone deeply disturbed by, say, the frankly fascistic behavior of Israelis in West Bank Settlements. Sometimes, that person is furious that Jews are asking them to critically examine the role of any or some of the above elements in their speech regarding Israel and Israelis.

Some Jews will weaponize a lot of our traumatic past to silence other Jews, and say that by writing this I am no better than the Jewish Police who rounded up their people for the Treblinka transports. Other Jews will say that by writing any of this, I'm silencing necessary speech regarding the war crimes in Gaza and that I'm complicit in the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian civilians as a result.

But this is my basic, 101 level response, and it's not going to change.

I really, truly, appreciate your how deeply you care about grasping these issues. If you have any follow-up questions I'd be happy to answer them under similar understandings of username exclusion.

[communist-ojou-sama]

I've said this before but if anyone's is curious why I say the rationalist clique is ideologically racist, really there are a lot of reasons but it becomes evident when you take a look at who qualifies as a real scholar to them.

University of Cairo Professor Emeritus of Political Science? Not a real expert in middle east politics, especially if what they say aligns with the anti-imperialists they so despise

University of Chicago Assistant-Professor of Middle-East Studies (white)? A real expert on MENA politics, especially if they say that the Zionist Entity is invincible and the Arab states must normalize

Tsinghua University Esteemed Fellow in Economics? Not a real scholar of economics, Especially if they're saying that the PRC is aiding African nations in sustainable development

Random quant trader on Twitter? Real scholar of economics, especially if they're saying China is exactly the same as the British Empire in Africa

Once you start noticing the patterns in who these people validate as real thinkers with real perspectives it is impossible to unsee

[talas-first-lady]

I love mocking Lena Luthor as much as the next person but here’s my personal headcanon: she’s face-blind.

Her brain just doesn’t process faces. And like people who actually have this in real life, she’s developed coping mechanisms to cover that up. She gets by almost entirely on context clues: voice, hair, body language, clothing style, etc. Plus, seeing as she’s Lena, she has an assistant who can tell her exactly who is about to walk into her office. And I’d bet that she’s developed some sort of gadget to help her if she ever gets stuck.

This is the main reason she’s originally anti-image inducers: because they fuck her whole system up. Aliens in general make everything much harder.

Except Supergirl, literally the easiest alien to recognize, because she always wears the same outfit and pretty much the same hairstyle. She’s got a very particular stance and specific vocal patterns.

And if whatever facial recognition tech she uses tries to tell her that Supergirl looks like Kara, she knows there’s a certain margin of error. And obviously that’s an error. Because Kara’s voice, gait, and mannerisms are nothing like Supergirl’s. She’s awkward and expressive and excitable. She has an extremely specific style. She has glasses. She’s just as unique as Supergirl is, but they’re nothing alike.

[weemietime]

There isn't a whole lot of content on Tumblr about schizoid personality disorder so I thought I would make a little informational post. SZPD is a cluster A personality disorder, of the odd/eccentric cluster alongside schizotypal and paranoid. It is on the schizophrenia spectrum, and comprises the negative rather than positive symptoms of schizophrenia.

This primarily means we have avolition, catatonia, flat/blunted affect (demeanor), limited interoception (emotional sensations), lack of bonds to others including primary family members, and indifference to the opinions of others.

Whilst this isn't a diagnostic criteria, many of us are also asexual and aromantic, meaning we don't want to have sex with other humans (but usually do masturbate) and have no interest in romantic companionship.

My most disabling symptom is avolition, because I have comorbid ADHD. This means when I don't have my medication (dextromethorphan 120mg) I just sit there and zone out and can't even hold a conversation or move my body, nor even do things like feed myself. It is genuinely crippling and I am unemployed because of this, even though my meds help, they don't cure me and I need a lot of time alone.

Schizoid is something of an "anti-human" disorder, because we fail to form basic social bonds with others including primary caregivers. As a child I got diagnosed with inhibited RAD because I could not tolerate human contact. This differs from autism because autistic people generally want to socialize, they just lack the skills. I don't want to socialize and it takes tremendous effort for me to do so.

To even make this post I had to wait for my meds to click in as I was just sitting there mindlessly beforehand. While we have low internal sensations of emotions like caring, love, happiness, trust, sadness, etc. we aren't typically antisocial/dissocial and don't have a pattern of exploiting others or dishonesty. This requires too much effort.

There is a schizoid version of narcissism but it is separate to narcissistic personality disorder. NPD is characterized by a very fragile ego. You can't contradict or disagree with NPD because they are unable to regulate the emotions caused by conflict. Conversely, SZPD does not care about the opinions of others at all and places little value on them.

Our sense of superiority is legitimate, meaning we just do genuinely believe we are smarter than other people. So your mileage may vary on how insufferable you find that. I recognize this trait in myself and work to actively challenge it since it is illogical for me to think I am more special than anyone else. But, my ego is very stable, so criticism doesn't bother me the way it would in NPD.

Interoception means the sensations you feel inside your body. We lack this, so even stuff like hunger and tiredness don't impact us until we are very hungry or extremely exhausted. I don't have the feeling you would to look at a family member and get a sense of love or trust. I have a logical sense of obligation that I developed through choosing what I value based on reason. I describe this as care, and I place importance on my friendships, but there is no emotional component to this, it is all cognitive.

Tangentially: I'm somewhat of an optimistic nihilist, believing that there is no grand purpose to existence. Yes, even as a religious person. I don't think G-d ultimately has a purpose either, as an agent of the universe. (I don't believe G-d created the universe.) We have a human nervous system, so we base our rubric for morality on suffering and decide what is meaningful both collectively and individually.

I don't believe in true freedom of will (but I do believe we have agency), because we know that Bereitschaftspotential or reaction potentials occur in the brain up to two seconds before we become conscious of a volitional desire. Our consciousness occurs because of quantum synchronicity in the brain, so our free will is in a bit of an in-between state rather than fully determined or fully free.

So, we are not born deciding "I'm going to be an abuser," that happens because of brain abnormalities. It's no different than the forces of creation and destruction at work like a virus infecting a host cell. I don't place much importance on concepts of self-hood, I view myself as the electrical and chemical processes that occur in my brain, which happen without my choosing, that I can influence and impact through my own agency.

Anyway, these are just some basic schizoid meanderings for you all and I hope that this was informative or interesting in some way. Peace.

[etz-ashashiyot]

Quotes from "Executed Jews" I want to especially highlight:

Two distinct patterns of antisemitism can be identified by the Jewish holidays that celebrate triumphs over them: Purim and Hanukkah. In the Purim version of antisemitism, exemplified by the Persian genocidal decrees in the biblical Book of Esther, the goal is openly stated and unambiguous: Kill all the Jews. In the Hanukkah version of antisemitism, whose appearances range from the Spanish Inquisition to the Soviet regime, the goal is still to eliminate Jewish civilization. But in the Hanukkah version, this goal could theoretically be accomplished simply by destroying Jewish civilization, while leaving the warm, de-Jewed bodies of its former practitioners intact.

For this reason, the Hanukkah version of antisemitism often employs Jews as its agents. It requires not dead Jews but cool Jews: those willing to give up whatever specific aspect of Jewish civilization is currently uncool. Of course, Judaism has always been uncool, going back to its origins as the planet's only monotheism, featuring a bossy and unsexy invisible God. Uncoolness is pretty much Judaism's brand, which is why cool people find it so threatening — and why Jews who are willing to become cool are absolutely necessary to Hanukkah antisemitism's success. These "converted" Jews are used to demonstrate the good intentions of the regime — which of course isn't antisemitic but merely requires that its Jews publicly flush thousands of years of Jewish civilization down the toilet in exchange for the worthy prize of not being treated like dirt, or not being murdered. For a few years. Maybe.

I wish I could tell the story of Ala's father concisely, compellingly, the way everyone prefers to hear about dead Jews. I regret to say that Benjamin Zuskin wasn't minding his own business and then randomly stuffed into a gas chamber, that his thirteen-year-old daughter did not sit in a closet writing an uplifting diary about the inherent goodness of humanity, that he did not leave behind sad-but-beautiful aphorisms pondering the absence of God while conveniently letting his fellow humans off the hook. He didn't even get crucified for his beliefs. Instead, he and his fellow Soviet Jewish artists — extraordinarily intelligent, creative, talented, and empathetic adults — were played for fools, falling into a slow-motion psychological horror story brimming with suspense and twisted self-blame. They were lured into a long game of appeasing and accommodating, giving up one inch after another of who they were in order to win that grand prize of being allowed to live.

Spoiler alert: they lost.

[...]

But Soviet support for Jewish culture was part of a larger plan to brainwash and coerce national minorities into submitting to the Soviet regime — and for Jews, it came at a very specific price. From the beginning, the regime eliminated anything that celebrated Jewish "nationality" that didn't suit its needs. Jews were awesome, provided they weren't practicing Jewish religion, studying traditional Jewish texts, using Hebrew, or supporting Zionism. The Soviet Union thus pioneered a versatile gaslighting slogan, which it later spread through its client states in the developing world and which remains popular today: it was not antisemitic, merely anti-Zionist. (In the process of not being antisemitic and merely being anti-Zionist, the regime managed to persecute, imprison, torture, and murder thousands of Jews.) What's left of Jewish culture once you surgically remove religious practice, traditional texts, Hebrew, and Zionism? In the Soviet Empire, one answer was Yiddish, but Yiddish was also suspect for its supposedly backwards elements. Nearly 15 percent of its words came directly from biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, so Soviet Yiddish schools and publishers, under the guise of "simplifying" spelling, implemented a new and quite literally antisemitic spelling system that eliminated those words' Near Eastern roots. Another answer was "folklore" — music, visual art, theater, and other creative work reflecting Jewish life — but of course most of that cultural material was also deeply rooted in biblical and rabbinic sources, or reflected common religious practices like Jewish holidays and customs, so that was treacherous too.

No, what the regime required were Yiddish stories that showed how horrible traditional Jewish practice was, stories in which happy, enlightened Yiddish-speaking heroes rejected both religion and Zionism (which, aside from its modern political form, is also a fundamental feature of ancient Jewish texts and prayers traditionally recited at least three times daily). This de-Jewing process is clear from the repertoire of the government-sponsored Moscow State Yiddish Theater, which could only present or adapt Yiddish plays that denounced traditional Judaism as backward, bourgeois, corrupt, or even more explicitly — as in the many productions involving ghosts or graveyard scenes — as dead. As its actors would be, soon enough.

The Soviet Union's destruction of Jewish culture commenced, in a calculated move, with Jews positioned as the destroyers. It began with the Yevsektsiya, committees of Jewish Bolsheviks whose paid government jobs from 1918 through 1930 were to persecute, imprison, and occasionally murder Jews who participated in religious or Zionist institutions — categories that included everything from synagogues to sports clubs, all of which were shut down and their leaders either exiled or "purged." This went on, of course, until the regime purged the Yevsektsiya members themselves.

The pattern repeated in the 1940s. As sordid as the Yeveksiya chapter was, I found myself more intrigued by the undoing of the Jewish Antifascist Committee, a board of prominent Soviet Jewish artists and intellectuals established by Joseph Stalin in 1942 to drum up financial support from Jews overseas for the Soviet war effort. Two of the more prominent names on the JAC's roster of talent were Solomon Mikhoels, the director of the Moscow State Yiddish Theater, and Ala's father Benjamin Zuskin, the theater's leading actor. After promoting these people during the war, Stalin decided these loyal Soviet Jews were no longer useful, and charged them all with treason. He had decided that this committee he himself created was in fact a secret Zionist cabal, designed to bring down the Soviet state. Mikhoels was murdered first, in a 1948 hit staged to look like a traffic accident. Nearly all the others — Zuskin and twelve more Jewish luminaries, including the novelist Dovid Bergelson, who had proclaimed Moscow as the center of the Yiddish future — were executed by firing squad on August 1952.

Just as the regime accused these Jewish artists and intellectuals of being too "nationalist" (read: Jewish), today's long hindsight makes it strangely tempting to read this history and accuse them of not being "nationalist" enough — that is, of being so foolishly committed to the Soviet regime that they were unable to see the writing on the wall. Many works on this subject have said as much. In Stalin's Secret Pogrom, the indispensable English translation of transcripts from the JAC "trial," Russia scholar Joshua Rubenstein concludes his lengthy introduction with the following:

As for the defendants at the trial, it is not clear what they believed about the system they each served. Their lives darkly embodied the tragedy of Soviet Jewry. A combination of revolutionary commitment and naive idealism had tied them to a system they could not renounce. Whatever doubts or misgivings they had, they kept to themselves, and served the Kremlin with the required enthusiasm. They were not dissidents. They were Jewish martyrs. They were also Soviet patriots. Stalin repaid their loyalty by destroying them.

This is completely true, and also completely unfair. The tragedy — even the term seems unjust, with its implied blaming of the victim — was not that these Soviet Jews sold their souls to the devil, though many clearly did. The tragedy was that integrity was never an option in the first place.

[...]

In Jerusalem that morning, Ala told me, in a sudden private moment of anger and candor, that the Soviet Union's treatment of the Jews was worse than Nazi Germany's. I tried to argue, but she shut me up. Obviously the Nazi atrocities against Jews were incomparable, a fact Ala later acknowledged in a calmer mood. But over four generations, the Soviet regime forced Jews to participate in and internalize their own humiliation - and in that way, Ala suggested, they destroyed far more souls. And they never, ever, paid for it.

"They never had a Nuremberg," Ala told me that day, with a quiet fury. "They never acknowledged the evil of what they did. The Nazis were open about what they were doing, but the Soviets pretended. They lured the Jews in, they baited them with support and recognition, they used them, they tricked them, and then they killed them. It was a trap. And no one knows about it, even now. People know about the Holocaust, but not this. Even here in Israel, people don't know. How did you know?"

— Excerpted from "Executed Jews," Chapter 4 of People Love Dead Jews by Dara Horn

(All emphasis mine)

Read the full chapter here.

[elodee3]

Day 13

Joel SmallishBeans + Psychedelic Art

For Joel I made a piece of psychedelic art!

You can learn more about psychedelic art below the cut. However, before reading further, please be aware that I will be discussing psychedelic drugs in the context of art history. This post is strictly educational and not at all intended to encourage recreational drug use.

HaDM Fundraiser for Gamers Outreach

Psychedelic art was a popular style of surreal art from the 1960s and early 1970s. It is often associated with countercultural movements from that time period.

Before the 1960s, scientists began developing psychadelics for mental health treatments, with promising results. However, people began using these drugs recreationally as well. Concerns about drug abuse unfortunately led to the halt of this research. Nevertheless, recreational psychedelics had already begun to influence popular culture.

In the 1960s and 70s, young creatives were experimenting heavily with psychedelics and creating art about these experiences. At the same time there was also a growing interest psychology, so the mind and internal experiences became popular topics in art, even when drugs were not directly involved in the creative process.

While the influence of psychedelics on this movement is undeniable, psychedelic art was not just about drugs. Many young people at the time were part of an anti-war, anti-capitalist counterculture and created art and music that protested the status quo.

Common features of psychedelic art include metaphysical or surreal subject matter, bright, contrasting colors, extreme detail, morphing or melting objects, repetitive patterns, and imagery associated with the mind or the subjective internal experience.

The most well-known psychedelic art piece are posters and album covers for rock bands and musicians, such as The Beatles, The Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, and many others. So, to represent the psychedelic art movement, I created a poster for Joel's "Honey, Honey, Honey" song.

The artist's I studied for this piece were Wes Wilson, Peter Max, and Milton Glaser. For authenticity, I also listened to The Dark Side of the Moon on repeat for six hours while making it.

Here is a cropped picture of the art:

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Editorial Vocabulary

definitions of terms during the writing, editing and publishing process

Acknowledgements: Text in which the author thanks those who’ve supported them.

Action beat: Short description that comes before, between or just after dialogue.

Adjective: A word that describes a noun.

Adverb: A word that describes a verb.

Adverbial phrase: A group of words that describe a verb.

Afterword: A concluding section, often reflecting on the book’s creation or providing additional context.

Anaphora: The deliberate repetition of words or phrases at the beginning of successive clauses for artistic effect.

Antagonist: An adversary. The character who creates obstacles and challenges for the protagonist, or behaves in a hostile fashion towards the protagonist.

Anti-protagonist: A protagonist whose own actions create opposition and conflict, often within themselves or against their own goals.

Apostrophe: A punctuation mark used to indicate possession, omission and, occasionally, a plural.

Appendix: Space in a book for material that doesn’t fit comfortably in the main text.

Asyndeton: Literary device through which a sentence’s structure follows the following pattern: A, B, C.

B-C

Back matter: Also end matter. Elements reserved for the back of a book, including appendix, glossary, endnotes, bibliography and index.

Beta reader: Test-reader who provides feedback on book.

Bibliography: List of all works cited in book, and any other work of interest to the reader.

Chapter drop: The space above and below the chapter title.

Character arc: Narrative that shows how a character changes and develops.

Characterization: The process of revealing a character's personality, traits and motives through actions and dialogue.

Colon: Punctuation mark that introduces additional/qualifying information about the clause it follows.

Comma splice: Two independent clauses joined by a comma rather than a conjunction or an alternative punctuation mark.

Conjunction: A word that connects clauses or sentences (e.g. ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘if’, ‘then’)

Copyediting: A review of grammar, punctuation, and spelling, ensuring consistency and accuracy in the manuscript's language.

Critique: Also manuscript evaluation. Report analysing a book’s strengths and weaknesses.

D

Denouement: The final part of the book in which all the plot strands are brought together and resolved.

Deuteragonist: A sidekick or confidante character who has the most influence on the protagonist, often helping them solve problems and overcome obstacles. Can be critical to driving the plot.

Developmental editing: Also structural editing. The improvement of a manuscript's structure, content, and overall narrative, focusing on big-picture elements. Attends to plot, characterisation, narration and pacing.

Dialogue tag: Also speech tag. Words that indicate which character is speaking (e.g. John said).

Dialogue: The lines characters speak in a book.

Diversity reader: Also sensitivity reader. Test-reader who checks for misrepresentation in books.

Double-page spread: Also DPS. The view of a printed book or PDF when opened so that the left- and right-hand pages are both visible.

Drama: The conflicts, emotional intensity, and impactful events that drive the plot and engage readers emotionally. The focus is on character relationships, motivations, and the consequences of their actions.

Dropped capital: Decorative first letter of the first word on the first line in a chapter. Larger than the rest of the text and drops down two lines or more.

E-F

Ellipsis: Punctuation mark that indicates a trailing-off or a pause.

End matter: Also back matter. Elements reserved for the back of a book, including appendix, glossary, endnotes, bibliography and index.

Endnote: Additional useful information at the end of a chapter or book.

Filter word: Verb that tells rather than shows (e.g. ‘noticed’, ‘seemed’, ‘spotted’, ‘saw’).

Folio: Somewhat old-fashioned term for page number. Also used to refer to a page.

Footnote: Additional useful information at the bottom of a page.

Foreword: A recommendation of the work written by someone other than the author.

Fourth wall: In books, the conceptual space between the characters and the readers.

Free indirect speech: Also free indirect style and free indirect discourse. Third-person narrative that holds the essence of first person thought or dialogue.

Front matter: Also prelims. Includes part title and title pages, foreword, preface and acknowledgements.

Full point: Period or full stop.

Full stop: Period or full point.

G-L

Glossary: Alphabetical list of important terms with explanations or definitions.

Habitual past tense: Uses ‘would’ or ‘used to’ with a verb to indicate events that happened routinely in a time past.

Half-title page: The first page of a book with any text on it; in a printed book, always a right-hand page. Contains only the main title of the book.

Head-hopping: Jumping from one character’s thoughts and internal experiences to another’s. Indicates viewpoint has been dropped.

Imprint: Publisher’s name.

Independent clause: A group of words that contains a subject and a predicate.

Index: Alphabetical list of all topics, themes, key terms and cited author names covered in the book, and the corresponding page numbers.

Information dump: Also word dump. Information that’s necessary to the story but isn’t artfully delivered, or weaved creatively into the narrative and dialogue.

Line editing: Also stylistic editing. The refining of a manuscript's language, focusing on consistency, clarity, flow and style at sentence level.

M-O

Maid-and-butler dialogue: Dialogue in which one character tells another something they already know so the reader can access backstory.

Manuscript evaluation: Also critique. Report analysing a book’s strengths and weaknesses.

Narrative arc: Also story arc. The structure and shape of a story.

Narrative authenticity: The believability and truthfulness of a story so that the characters and events feel real within the framework of the novel’s world.

Narrative distance: Also psychic distance. How close the reader feels to a character’s thoughts, emotions and experiences within a story.

Narrative: Story. The part of the book that’s narrated, excluding the dialogue.

Narrative style: The author's unique manner of storytelling, encompassing language, tone, viewpoint and other structural choices.

Narrative voice: The style, tone, and personality through which a narrator or character tells a story to readers.

Numerals, Arabic: 1, 2, 3 etc.

Numerals, Roman: i, ii, iii etc.

Omniscient: All-knowing. Refers to a viewpoint style in fiction writing.

Overwriting: Using too many words on the page. Often characterized by repetition and redundancy.

P

Page proofs: A file that’s reached a stage in the publishing process where the text and images of a manuscript have been laid out in their final format.

Pantser: A writer who doesn’t outline or plan story structure, but flies by the seat of their pants.

Period: Full stop or full point.

Perspective character: Also viewpoint character. The character through whose eyes the story is primarily told. The narrative lens through which readers experience events, thoughts, and emotions within the story.

Plot: The sequence of events in a novel.

Point of view: Also viewpoint and POV. Describes whose head we’re in when we read a book, or whose perspective we experience the story from.

Polysyndeton: Literary device through which a sentence’s structure follows the following pattern: A and B and C.

Predicate: The part of a sentence that contains a verb and that tells us something about what the subject’s doing or what they are.

Preface: An explanation of the purpose, scope and content of a book, and written by the author.

Prelims: Also front matter. Includes part title and title pages, foreword, preface and acknowledgements.

Pronoun: A word that replaces a noun (e.g. I, you, he, she, we, me, it, this, that, them those, myself, who, whom). Pronouns can act and be acted upon like any noun.

Proofreading: The final pre-publication quality-control stage of editing where any final literal errors and layout problems are flagged up. Comes after developmental editing, stylistic line editing and copyediting.

Proper noun: A named person, place or organization. Always takes an initial capital letter.

Protagonist: The leading character in a novel, often facing central conflicts and driving action.

Psychic distance: Also narrative distance. How close the reader feels to a character’s thoughts, emotions and experiences within a story.

Purple prose: Overblown, poorly structured writing with strings of extraneous and often multisyllabic adjectives and adverbs.

Q-R

Quotation mark: Also speech mark. Punctuation that indicates the spoken word. Singles or doubles are acceptable.

Recto: The right-hand page of a book.

References: List of all the works cited in your book.

Roman typeface: Not italic.

Running head: Text that runs across the top of a page (e.g. title of the book, chapter title, author’s name).

S

Scene: a distinct segment or building block where specific actions and events unfold in a setting.

Scene technique: The use of dialogue, action, setting, and tension to craft compelling moments in the story.

Semi-colon: A punctuation mark that indicates a stronger pause than a comma between two main clauses.

Sensitivity reader: Also diversity reader. Test-reader who checks for misrepresentation in books.

Speech mark: Also quotation mark. Punctuation that indicates the spoken word. Singles or doubles are acceptable.

Speech tag: Also dialogue tag. Words that indicate which character is speaking (e.g. John said).

Story arc: Also narrative arc. The structure and shape of a story.

Structural editing: Also developmental editing. The improvement of a manuscript's structure, content, and overall narrative, focusing on big-picture elements. Attends to plot, characterisation, narration and pacing.

Style sheet: In which an author or editor records stylistic and language preferences, and tracks who’s who, what’s where, and when X, Y and Z happens.

Stylistic editing: Also line editing. The refining of a manuscript's language, focusing on consistency, clarity, flow and style at sentence level.

Subject: The thing in a sentence that’s doing or being something.

Subplot: A secondary storyline that supports and enhances the main plot of a narrative.

Suspense: The tension, uncertainty and anticipation created by withholding information, raising stakes or placing characters in imminent danger. Readers are kept guessing or forced to ask questions.

Syndeton: Literary device through which a sentence’s structure follows the following pattern: A, B and C (or A, B, and C).

T

Talking-heads syndrome: Dialogue that isn’t grounded in the environment or the characters’ responses to that environment.

Tense: The form a verb takes to indicate when an action happened in relation to the telling of it.

Tension: The emotional strain or suspense created by unresolved conflicts, stakes or uncertainties that keep readers engaged.

Tertiary character: A functional character who gives the story realism and depth, but doesn’t significantly impact on or influence the plot or the development of the other characters.

Theme: The novel’s central idea or message about life, society, or human nature.

Title page: Includes full title (and subtitle if there is one), author’s name, publisher’s name, logo, volume number, and edition.

Transgressor: A character who commits morally, socially, or legally questionable acts.

Tritagonist: Third most important character, who often provide regular emotional or physical support, but don’t determine how the story develops.

U-W

Unreliable dialogue: Dialogue that doesn’t match a character’s true voice, mood or intent.

Unreliable narrator: A character whose telling of the story cannot be taken at face value. They may be naïve, confused, or deliberately manipulative.

Verb, intransitive: A verb that doesn’t have a direct object (e.g. ‘I giggled’).

Verb, transitive: A verb that has a direct object (e.g. ‘wrote’ in ‘I wrote a book’).

Verb: A word that describes doing. Can refer to a physical action (e.g. to dig), a mental action (e.g. to wonder) or a state of being (e.g. to be).

Verso: The left-hand page of a book.

Viewpoint: Also point of view or POV. Describes whose head we’re in when we read a book.

Viewpoint character: Also perspective character. The character through whose eyes the story is primarily told, and the narrative lens through which readers experience events, thoughts, and emotions within the story.

Vocative: The form of address for a character directly referred to in dialogue.

Word dump: Also information dump. Information that’s necessary to the story but isn’t artfully delivered, or weaved creatively into the narrative and dialogue.

Source More: On Editing ⚜ Word Lists

[transmutationisms]

in addition to being prone to an obvious naturalistic fallacy, the oft-repeated claim that various supplements / herbs / botanicals are being somehow suppressed by pharmaceutical interests seeking to protect their own profits ('they would rather sell you a pill') belies a clear misunderstanding of the relationship between 'industrial' pharmacology and plant matter. bioprospecting, the search for plants and molecular components of plants that can be developed into commercial products, has been one of the economic motivations and rationalisations for european colonialism and imperialism since the so-called 'age of exploration'. state-funded bioprospectors specifically sought 'exotic' plants that could be imported to europe and sold as food or materia medica—often both, as in the cases of coffee or chocolate—or, even better, cultivated in 'economic' botanical gardens attached to universities, medical schools, or royal palaces and scientific institutions.

this fundamental attitude toward the knowledge systems and medical practices of colonised people—the position, characterising eg much 'ethnobotany', that such knowledge is a resource for imperialist powers and pharmaceutical manufacturers to mine and profit from—is not some kind of bygone historical relic. for example, since the 1880s companies including pfizer, bristol-myers squibb, and unilever have sought to create pharmaceuticals from african medicinal plants, such as strophanthus, cryptolepis, and grains of paradise. in india, state-created databases of valuable 'traditional' medicines have appeared partly in response to a revival of bioprospecting since the 1980s, in an increasingly bureaucratised form characterised by profit-sharing agreements between scientists and local communities that has nonetheless been referred to as "biocapitalism". a 1990 paper published in the proceedings of the novartis foundation symposium (then the ciba foundation symposium) spelled out this form of epistemic colonialism quite bluntly:

Ethnobotany, ethnomedicine, folk medicine and traditional medicine can provide information that is useful as a 'pre-screen' to select plants for experimental pharmacological studies.

there is no inherent oppositional relationship between pharmaceutical industry and 'natural' or plant-based cures. there are of course plenty of examples of bioprospecting that failed to translate into consumer markets: ginseng, introduced to europe in the 17th century through the mercantile system and the east india company, found only limited success in european pharmacology. and there are cases in which knowledge with potential market value has actually been suppressed for other reasons: the peacock flower, used as an abortifacient in the west indies, was 'discovered' by colonial bioprospectors in the 18th century; the plant itself moved easily to europe, but knowledge of its use in reproductive medicine became the subject of a "culturally cultivated ignorance," resulting from a combination of funding priorities, national policies, colonial trade patterns, gender politics, and the functioning of scientific institutions. this form of knowledge suppression was never the result of a conflict wherein bioprospectors or pharmacists viewed the peacock flower as a threat to their own profits; on the contrary, they essentially sacrificed potential financial benefits as a result of the political and social factors that made abortifacient knowledge 'unknowable' in certain state and commercial contexts.

exploitation of plant matter in pharmacology is not a frictionless or infallible process. but the sort of conspiratorial thinking that attempts to position plant therapeutics and 'big pharma' as oppositional or competitive forces is an ahistorical and opportunistic example of appealing to nominally anti-capitalist rhetoric without any deeper understanding of the actual mechanisms of capitalism and colonialism at play. this is of course true whether or not the person making such claims has any personal financial stake in them, though it is of course also true that, often, they do hold such stakes.

[b1asho]

Species number two: Rossetians!!

Here's some more info, because unfortunately I ran out of room to cram it in between the drawings:

Rossetians are a mid-sized species that evolved in an area roughly the size of Europe, and have less extreme regional differences than other species, usually only having some vatiation in skin pattern, color, and snout shape.

They aren’t exactly adapted to live in water, but there were enough water obstacles around that they developed some useful traits like nostrils in the top of their head and semi-webbed hooves.

Their skin is thick, dry and rough, closer to scales. This bars moisture from coming in and leaving. The only place they have hairlike structures is in/around the pouch/genitals for oil secretion and for neonates to pull on to drag themselves into the pouch after birth (meaning they see hair as private and even lewd).

they use their heat-sensitive nose pits and sensitive pronged tongue to navigate low visibility places like tunnels and dense vegetation, and also to locate food and other resources that are hidden in crevices.

Their tongue in particular replaces their sense of smell, and is able to detect minute chemical changes in the air. It’s pretty long, and slides back into a hole a bit in their mouth/throat when closed.

They also use their four wide set eyes to scan more open areas, and while they have good close and far vision, they cant see in the dark and have poor color vision.

Rossetians share our iron based blood, using a large molecule that is contained in cells. It retains oxygen for much longer and in higher quantities (closer to erythrocruorin in size and effectiveness.) it is a very dark red when not oxygenated and turns a much brighter red shade than human blood when exposed to oxygen.

It is very very stable, can operate at a wide range of temperatures, and helps them manage in oxygen scarce environments between the pockets of oxygen in their tunnels (however, they can’t tolerate low oxygen for long, and need warm temperatures and abundant oxygen function well).

The high quantities of oxygen their blood can carry helped fuel them when fleeing predators, but at other times the large size of the molecule means that it takes a lot of energy to pump it around fast, and it already brings a lot of oxygen per molecule, so normally they have a slow heartbeat and metabolism. It also has anti-inflammatory properties, all of these things potentially leading to their longer natural lifespans.

This iron based blood developed because their environment was very heavy in metals, particularly iron. There were also a lot of other toxins just hanging around in the air, water, and soil. They have a very strong liver and other specialized glands and processes to help them metabolize and expel metals that they take in, it they can tolerate a lot more metals in their body than a human could (they’re very hard to kill via poison, toxin exposure, or drugs) . they actually incorporated it into more of their body (namely their horns and teeth, and for coloration of skin). Like limpets, they have metal in their teeth, making them extremely hard and strong (used for scraping off algae, moss, and lichens from rocks and crushing nuts and tubers) this also partially accounts for the color of the teeth, though some still have white teeth due to less pigmentation. Their colors vary less due to sun exposure and more due to the content of elements around them.

Rossetians were originally prey animals, with their horn and extremely thick skin/fat layer being their main protection from predators. (through selection over the years, their horns have become a bit more ornamental, though they’re still plenty sharp). They developed sapience due to their overkill sensory prowess, letting them spend less time scanning and more time thinking. Eventually, this combined with their cooperative herd structure/domestication of food sources to advance their intelligence to modern day.

As herbivores, they eat predominantly plant matter, though some also consume dairy due to a similar “lactose tolerance” mutation as humans for the taste and nutrients. They eat small and frequent meals for steadier energy to make up for their slow metabolism.

They are endotherms, though mainly due to their thick fat and skin layer helping them to trap heat. Without this, they aren't nearly as good as humans at regulating their own temperature, though they can still shiver and pant to try and regulate (they cant sweat).

They have a total of 6 teeth, two in the front and four molars in the back.

Their food tends to be boiled or otherwise processed in some way to make it easier to get energy and nutrients faster with their otherwise slow metabolism (so they can stay on the go for busy city life)

They are viviparous and can reproduce any time of the year like humans, but they lack a true placenta. infants instead develop in a pouch of skin on the mother where they drink milk.

Their pouch opens like an American opossum, and their children will stay in and out of it for a while even a little after they’ve been weaned (eventually, they get too big.) They stay in there for the first year or so, and will then start exploring outside in their ‘toddler’ stage before eventually being able to walk on their own.

They have a centaur-esque body plan that allowed them to free up a front set of arms and support brain development while also being able to lower themselves to the height needed to navigate the volcanic tunnels they lived in and move quickly. The only important thing in their front "torso" region is a small cluster of nerves that helps handle some of their sensory information.

4 of their 6 limbs are for walking while the front 2 specialized for object manipulation, with the two digits on the sides slightly turned inwards and able to be used almost like thumbs. None of them are very good for gripping since climbing wasn’t part of their evolutionary history (though all of them are also slightly webbed, especially the back ones, since swimming was helpful to them in their environment)

Their soft lips and similarly shaped mouth make it very easy for them to replicate human language, though their tongue and teeth sometimes get in the way (and makes it harder for humans to speak their language, since some noises require the use of two or four prongs of the tongue at once).

They can see a color spectrum similar to horses or deer on earth, which is why their clothing is often dull or monochrome besides the stitched patterns. However, since it was useful for them to be able to see some color variation to tell if a plant was poisonous or not, they can see reds/greens a bit better than Prectikar, who have a similar colorblindess range.

While they can't see red, they still incorporate it into their clothing since to them it registers as a nice green to accent the blue and yellow. To us, it looks red.

They have very homogeneous cultural traits because for much of their history, they have valued unity and have been joined together under one Empire or another (most recently, the same guys who got to the Prectikar). However, similar to cultures across, say the British isle, they still have unique quirks from their regional heritage.

Males have a horn with a unicorn-like front spike and a considerably longer tail, while females lack the horn projection and also have a pouch. Unlike other species, they actually have similar sex and gender roles as human men and women, though a bit more pronounced than current humans due to their society’s particular emphasis on family units in politics and economics.

They also have stricter nudity and propriety standards year round, with traditional conservatives barely showing anything more than their face out in public.

They show marriage through pierced ears. They typically have one partner for life.

Most of their clothing is heavily layered with lots of dresses and cloaks to give them a feeling of security when in public, like a weighted blanket or something to cover their shape so they feel less exposed. Many also cover their sensitive ears when in crowded spaces.

Most of their brain is in their head, but they have 2 smaller clusters to help deal with other sensory information and leave more room for thinking in the main brain. The clusters are located between their front arms (protected by the larger vertebrae and collarbone/shoulder blade their arms connect to up there) and their pelvic girdle.

When interacting with other species, they are known to be very timid and insular among themselves. Unfortunately, xenophobia has a very literal meaning to them since most other species have traits that they instinctively find unsettling as former prey animals, like sharp teeth and claws (similar to what happens when you see a snake or spider, even if you know it won’t or can’t hurt you most people still feel fear). Without proper socialization for both parties, things can get awkward very fast.

[elainsgirl]

For so long, antis have had the confidence of believing that they were the loudest and most popular side of this ship war. They were the majority therefore had influence on the fandom, sharing their takes and interpretations which have led to lots of misinformation and misunderstandings within. Simply put, they were confident. And it was easy to amplify this confidence as for 3 years the acotar fandom has been given close to nothing by Mass, therefore no one to challenge their takes and opinions.

yet 4 years later its changing.

You have Sjm in the Today show talking about the idea of rejected mates and the agency surrounding that concept which only applies to elucien, the mating bond questioned twice within acotar. Not a good look for eluciens as they’ve been claiming that Sjm is a “fated” mates author and wouldn’t consider a rejected mates trope. You have multiple, credible articles such as E! coming out with the idea of Elains book being next, Sjm’s ACOTAR special editions reprinting the Feysand bonus which talked & focused on Elain partially - none of that supports what Gwynriel have been claiming for years. That Azriels book is next. Sjm posting “guilty as sin” on her story - a song that describes elriel perfectly. And what did gwynriels do? Try to twist the song for their own ship but it failed to happen bcs everyone knows the concept of guilty as sin doesnt suit gwynriel at all. Azriel questioning the cauldron…him in HOFAS being right there when it was confirmed the cauldron had in fact been corrupted.

Gwynriel and Elucien are so popular yet…companies don’t acknowledge them. They interact with elriels. Comment under elriel videos. Support elriel. Yet not their ships and whilst they can swear up and down how it doesn’t matter to them and means nothing - it says so much that the loudest part of this fandom is being ignored by those on the outside.

We are close to an announcement. Whether that happens next month, 3 months or even 7 months from now yet nothing has reinforced the idea of elucien/gwynriel. No credible announcements. Nothing Sjm has wrote, posted or talked about. In fact, now more then ever - antis are constantly being challenged more boldly for their takes. Being called out on how illogical and flawed their arguements are, even by casual readers.

Antis rlly placed their faith in those who allowed their biased opinions to influence the text and what they took from it. They placed their faith in a ship where the two characters are not canon LIs, how crazy is that? They placed their faith in a ship where the bond has been questioned. Where the author has done nothing to develop them.

instead of placing their faith in two characters who want each other and follow the same pattern/parallel as other canon couples.

[damnfandomproblems]

Fandom Problem #8640:

You want to know the reason why indie developers for any type of media get so much toxic crap and drama?

Here are the questions for the most well known instances: Why did Undertale have such a shitty fanbase? Why are the toxic Vivziepop Stan’s and Vivziepop Antis so quick to attack people like rabid hyenas even over the smallest mistakes? Why did Glitch Productions get themselves into drama? Why did the developer of the Coffin of Andy and Leyley get harassed and doxxed?

The answer is simple: Independent creators are easier to target as opposed to big name companies, like your Nintendos, Capcoms, Warner Bros, Comedy Central, Fox, all the big guys you can think of off the top of your heads. Not even the most toxic and dangerous fans are stupid enough to target a big name company because those companies have some pretty damn good lawyers.

With indie creators, they are more subjected to harassment, doxxing, and there is a higher chance that they will attract a toxic fanbase. In the case of the creator of The Coffin of Andy and Leyley, she got doxxed because people didn’t like incest in a HORROR video game. There are some exceptions out there, but this has become a pattern at this point for indie creators.