#definitely some influence from 2014

[recorder-dude]

Some randos from god knows where

[superlinguo]

Gesture: A Slim Guide - Five Fun Facts

To celebrate the publication of Gesture: A Slim Guide I've selected five facts from/about the book to share:

1. The cover is a deepcut reference to my first gesture research project

Gawne & Kelly (2014) is actually work from my honours project in 2007 - it took us a while to write it up for publication. In that experiment, participants watched a short video narrative and marked everything they thought was a 'gesture' without being given a definition. On the whole, people agree at a minimum level with Gesture Studies researchers about what a gesture is, but tend to include far more in their definition. The cover illustration from Lucy Maddox captures some of the key gestures from that video. Because we had no budget, I filmed the video of myself narrating the story.

2. Learning a signed language will affect the way you gesture in spoken language

Research on learners of ASL shows that learning a signed language affects the gestures of people who have spent their whole life speaking English. Gesture and signed languages are two very different uses of the same modality, but they influence each other in interesting ways.

3. You can make people imagine emphasis differently by changing the placement of emphatic gestures

Hans Rutger Bosker and David Peeters created experimental video clips that you can see here. They took inspiration for their experimental work from the classic McGurk effect in phonetics, where watching a mouth closing like a /g/ while a /b/ sound is played will make the viewer hear a /d/.

4. Dolphins and seals demonstrate the capacity to follow human pointing gestures

While there is evidence that many domestic animals can follow human pointing gestures, this is the only documented evidence to date that shows this skill in wild animals that aren't primates.

5. People still gesture even if their audience can't see them, but the way they gesture changes

Speech and gesture are so closely linked up that we can't help but gesture, even if our audience can't see us. Experiments show that changing the audience conditions changes how large or frequent gestures are, but nothing stops us gesturing completely.

The official launch party for Gesture: A Slim Guide will be the April episode of Lingthusiasm, stay tuned!

Book overview

The gestures that we use when we speak are an important, if often over-looked, part of how we communicate. This book provides a friendly, fast-paced introduction to the field of Gesture Studies. Gestures are those communicative actions made with the human body that accompany spoken or signed language. Paying attention to gesture means paying attention to the fuller context in which humans communicate. Gesture is absolute, in that every human community that has language also has gestures as part of that language. But gesture is also relative, in that it is far more heavily context dependent than other elements of communication. This book provides a broad introduction to current understandings of the nature and function of gesture as a feature of communication. This Slim Guide covers the ways gesture works alongside speech and the different categories of gesture. The way these categories are used varies across cultures and languages, and even across specific interactions. We acquire gesture as part of language, and it is deeply entwined with language in the brain. Gesture has an important role in the origin of language, and in shaping the future of human communication. The study of gesture makes a crucial interdisciplinary contribution to our understanding of human communication. This Slim Guide provides an introduction to Gesture Studies for readers of all backgrounds.

Order links

Bookshop .org (affiliate link)

Amazon (affiliate link)

Booko page (for Australians)

[applepieshy]

I had an idea to redesign vox because I didn't love that a character obsessed with modernization would wear a top hat and bowtie. then after a brief stint into madness where I read my partner's historic costuming textbook I drew.... all this.

(side note: the idea of vox being a trans man who transitioned AFTER death was super compelling and absolutely inspired by @prince-liest so while this is not direct fanart of their series I wanted to give a shoutout anyway!!!)

okay some TRULY unhinged rambling about historic costume below the cut YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

1950s: for this design I very much did not want to go to the typical a-line housewife look, because I feel that is unfitting for vox's character. instead I went for a more business look, but there is still a level of femininity that he would have been expected to perform. i wanted to express his discomfort with that through the pose and expression, though at the time he wouldn't necessarily have a framework for why he hated it

1960s: this one was very fun. i loved the idea of vox beginning to eschew some of the expected feminine presentation, and he no longer wears makeup, jewelry, or hose (though its hard to tell in black & white); however, he's kind of at war with himself in this time period. he's obsessed with seeming perfect and having a respectable image, so he would not go in for the counter-culture movements that were so big in the 60s. he's still kind of riding those coattails though, pushing those boundaries while still not acknowledging his queerness.

1970s: to me, it was very important that the gender hit as he entered the world in color. in my mind the gender euphoria is physically manifested in a wizard of oz situation - he can become who he always has been. anyway, gender aside, I think it was very important to me personally that he wore an ascot. it was for my mental health.

1980s: I wanted the 1980s to be the period where he began to gain some power and notoriety because of the de-regulation of television during this period to allow more ads, mirroring real-world history. I think if the 70s were when vox gained some real confidence, the 80s are when he got an Ego (tm). "business casual" also began to become more acceptable in this time period, and the t-shirt/suit jacket combo was very important for me to include, as to me it epitomizes the commercialism and machismo of the 80s.

1990s: this was actually the decade I was the most nervous to design, and yet I think it turned out the best? the 90s are known for grunge, which I think is NOT vox's style at all. I decided instead to lean hard into the yuppie look, which I know is more associated with the 80s but was definitely still a thing in the 90s. I also allowed a little hip-hop influence in the form of a gold chain from val, which is not something I think vox would ever pick on his own.

2000s: if the 90s were the decade I was worried about and turned out great, the 2000s are the decade I thought I had down SO GOOD and then totally floundered in execution. I still love the bubble-mac inspired head, and I tried to make his clothes as "round" as possible. I also like that this is the time where his saturation got cranked. however, I don't know if I'm in love with the vest and super bright sneakers, because again, looking back on it, he kind of looks like he works at a movie theater or best buy or some shit lol,,,

2010s: I think it's telling that this is by far the closest to his canon design (2014 tumblr lookin ass). I really wanted to pull from that hipster tech bro era, but unfortunately that aesthetic has a veneration for "retro" which again, is not fitting for vox. I still think he would wear the bowtie during this time because, well... he sure does in the show!

2020s: this was fun because I had an excuse to pull from haute couture design rather than street fashion because of the introduction of velvette into his life. I truly do not think velvette would let vox and val walk around in the outfits that they do because it would be an actual embarrassment LMAO. for this, I wanted his decorative "robes" to be evocative of the time he depicted himself as a priest AND of a cape/robe of an emperor. he does think of himself as that bitch, after all.

[alpaca-clouds]

The history of Solarpunk

Okay, I guess this has to be said, because the people will always claim the same wrong thing: No, Solarpunk did not "start out as an aesthetic". Jesus, where the hell does this claim even come from? Like, honestly, I am asking.

Solarpunk started out as a genre, that yes, did also include design elements, but also literary elements. A vaguely defined literary genre, but a genre never the less.

And I am not even talking about those early books that we today also claim under the Solarpunk umbrella. So, no, I am not talking about Ursula K. LeGuin, even though she definitely was a big influence on the genre.

The actual history of Solarpunk goes something like that: In the late 1990s and early 2000s the term "Ecopunk" was coined, which was used to refer to books that kinda fit into the Cyberpunk genre umbrella, but were more focused on ecological themes. This was less focused on the "high tech, high life" mantra that Solarpunk ended up with, but it was SciFi stories, that were focused on people interacting with the environment. Often set to a backdrop of environmental apocalypse. Now, other than Solarpunk just a bit later, this genre never got that well defined (especially with Solarpunk kinda taking over the role). As such there is only a handful of things that ever officially called themselves Ecopunk.

At the same time, though, the same sort of thought was picked up in the Brazilian science fiction scene, where the idea was further developed. Both artistically, where it got a lot of influence from the Amazofuturism movement, but also as an ideology. In this there were the ideas from Ecopunk as the "scifi in the ecological collaps" in there, but also the idea of "scifi with technology that allows us to live within the changing world/allows us to live more in harmony with nature".

Now, we do not really know who came up with the idea of naming this "Solarpunk". From all I can find the earliest mention of the term "Solarpunk" that is still online today is in this article from the Blog Republic of Bees. But given the way the blogger talks about it, it is clear there was some vague definition of the genre before it.

These days it is kinda argued about whether that title originally arose in Brazil or in the Anglosphere. But it seems very likely that the term was coined between 2006 and 2008, coming either out of the Brazilian movement around Ecopunk or out of the English Steampunk movement (specifically the literary branch of the Steampunk genre).

In the following years it was thrown around for a bit (there is an archived Wired article from 2009, that mentions the term once, as well as one other article), but for the moment there was not a lot happening in this regard.

Until 2012, when the Brazilian Solarpunk movement really started to bloom and at the same time in Italy Commando Jugendstil made their appearance. In 2012 in Brazil the anthology "Solarpunk: Histórias ecológicas e fantásticas em um mundo sustentável" was released (that did get an English translation not too long ago) establishing some groundwork for the genre. And Commando Jugendstil, who describe themselves as both a "Communication Project" and an "Art Movement", started to work on Solarpunk in Italy. Now, Commando Jugendstil is a bit more complicated than just one or the other. As they very much were a big influence on some of the aesthetic concepts, but also were releasing short stories and did some actual punky political action within Italy.

And all of that was happening in 2012, where the term really started to take off.

And only after this, in 2014, Solarpunk became this aesthetic we know today, when a (now defuct) tumblr blog started posting photos, artworks and other aesthetical things under the caption of Solarpunk. Especially as it was the first time the term was widely used within the Anglosphere.

Undoubtedly: This was probably how most people first learned of Solarpunk... But it was not how Solarpunk started. So, please stop spreading that myth.

The reason this bothers me so much is, that it so widely ignores how this movement definitely has its roots within Latin America and specifically Brazil. Instead this myth basically tries to claim Solarpunk as a thing that fully and completely originated within the anglosphere. Which is just is not.

And yes, there was artistic aspects to that early Solarpunk movement, too. But also a literary and political aspectt. That is not something that was put onto a term that was originally an aesthetic - but rather it was something that was there from the very beginning.

Again: There has been an artistic and aesthetic aspect in Solarpunk from the very beginning, yes. But there has been a literary and political aspect in it the entire time, too. And trying to divorce Solarpunk from those things is just wrong and also... kinda misses the point.

So, please. Just stop claiming that entire "it has been an aesthetic first" thing. Solarpunk is a genre of fiction, it is a political movement, just as much as it is an artistic movement. Always has been. And there has always been punk in it. So, please, stop acting as if Solarpunk is just "pretty artistic vibes". It is not.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk, I guess.

[harloqui]

What I've Been Saying!

I know there was discourse a while back about p-shifters and "why don't they call themselves delusional" and "is the idea of p-shifting itself harmful" and the like. A new paper came out by Dr. Jan Dirk Blom (a clinical lycanthropy expert, he's talked about otherkin before) about clinical therianthropy and a comparison to non-clinical therianthropic and otherkin groups. What he's saying seems fairly relevant to the current discourse:

"Misdiagnosis of clinical therianthropy can also be made in terms of overpathologizing certain individuals who report strong identification with animals. In order to avoid this possibility, certain terms and group memberships will be discussed. However, in reviewing the professional and online literatures, there seems to be an unavoidable degree of fuzziness or overlap in current definitions (Plante et al., 2016) and, at least at present, a definitive definitional guide seems lacking."

"Another relevant group, already alluded to, is called therians. Therians overlap with furries to a degree, but the identification of these people with animals (or rather as animals) seems to be far stronger. This could range from a strong perceived connection to their fursona to a firmly held conviction that they are less than 100 % human or would even prefer not to be human (Grivell, 2014). Reviewing the literature, people may identify themselves as therians on psychological, behavioral, spiritual, metaphorical, or existential grounds (Scribner, 2012)."

"We would argue that misdiagnoses can be avoided by focusing on i) the nature of the animal identification, ii) the presence or absence of a belief in actual transformation, iii) one’s overall level of reality-testing, and iv) the presence of clinically significant distress and impairment."

"The notion of zoomorphism has such a long and impressive track record in the history of humankind that it is probably safe to say that it has always been around. It has been part and parcel of many cultures, and individuals may have felt attracted to the belief that human-to-animal transformations are possible under the influence of psychological, social, religious, philosophical, chemical, and cultural influences."

"That the number of published cases of clinical therianthropy is so modest is probably due to underdiagnosis, but it may also indicate that zoomorphism in its numerous different forms is a harmless trait that only leads to excesses in relatively rare cases where people feel misunderstood, become socially isolated, and start showing grossly erratic behavior."

"First, and consistent with prior reports, clinical therianthropy rarely occurs on its own, but far more frequently in the context of other serious psychiatric or somatic conditions and occasionally intoxications. It may therefore be a useful additional diagnosis or diagnostic qualifier with no assumption of it becoming a ‘standalone’ diagnosis. Second, we advise against applying this additional diagnosis or qualifier to nonclinical cases (i.e., to situations where people fulfill one or more criteria of zoomorphism in the absence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning). We thus hope to prevent a spurious epidemic of nonclinical or ‘minor’ cases of therianthropy, as well as to protect people who enjoy their perceived non-human animal characteristics - or perhaps simply tolerate them - from seeing their ideas and sensations being pathologized."

(bolding mine)

He also went into some interesting questions regarding clinical therianthropy (like if a person claims to turn into a mythical creature, are they still a clinical therianthrope? Probably not) as well as the -anthrope names for some common and uncommon animal transformations.

[twopoppies]

Hi Gina, lately I’ve been thinking about how I first joined the fandom and my origins as a larrie, and I wanted to share it:

I joined the fandom at the end of 2014 (I was like 13/14), right when the rumors about a possible split were going around because of Zayn missing some public appearances with 1D. I don’t remember the exact moment my interest started, but I do remember following a bunch of UAs and fan accounts on tw. During that time, I didn’t really pay attention to what the media said about the boys. I just didn’t care. My main source of info was always content directly from them:interviews, youtube videos titled “1D funniest moments,” and of course, I followed every one of their concerts through tw. And I think that’s the main reason why larry seemed so obvious to me. Like, my perception wasn’t “influenced” by outside noise—I was just watching them in settings where they had a bit more freedom. From the beginning, it was super clear to me that they were together. I remember it actually took a while before I even did any real research because it just felt so obvious that I didn’t need further confirmation.

Later on, when I wanted to dig deeper (especially around the time BBG started and the hiatus was announced), I created a tumblr blog and the first blogs I followed were Amy’s (lesbianlouis) and Lorna’s. I know Lorna’s not around anymore, and I’m not sure if Amy is still here or if her views on the boys have changed. But both of them were such great sources of information and helped me understand more of the complex situation with H and L. That’s when I started understanding what it means to be closeted and learning just how awful the music industry is. I also started to notice how the version of H and L I knew didn’t line up at all with how the general public saw them. It was kinda shocking. And of course, fimq’s videos helped me navigate all of that too. I’ll always be thankful to them.

Continuing with the story, after 1D ended and their solo careers started, I was in and out of the fandom. I wish I’d been more consistent and had followed them through all of it, but stuff happened. Then, I basically left completely when the whole dwd promo started (like from the first official appearance of ow). And apparently, I wasn’t the only one who left around that time 😅.

Fast forward to the end of 2024, I came back when Liam passed. At first, it was all nostalgia. Then I started catching up. I was surprised by how much info and how many resources there are now. And obviously, that content comes from all over the fandom: larries, ex-Larries, solos, etc.—and some people write their arguments so well that if you didn’t have context, you’d totally believe them.

Things are definitely different now. One thing that surprised me was that when I first came back, I struggled a bit to reconnect with Harry, because his public image seems really polished. But then I started listening to his songs again, opened myself up to different interpretations of his art, listened to him speak, the symbolism he uses, watched him on stage… and after all that, I reconnected with him—just in a different and more meaningful way than before. Like, on the surface you might think “he’s gotten a bit full of himself” or whatever, but then you realize he’s still that quirky guy from before, just more emotionally mature. And I feel like that consistency in who he is really comes through in his songwriting and how he talks about certain things. He’s evolved for sure, but the core of who he is hasn’t changed. I don’t know if that makes sense, but that consistency in his character is really clear to me.

I know that with all the opinions and info flying around, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed or start doubting everything—whether you’re new or just coming back after a long time. But my recommendation would be: before diving into opinions, take the time to watch and listen to them directly—from the 1D days until now. It’ll give you a pretty clear sense of who they are as people. And that helps you recognize all the inconsistencies in what the media says about them. For me, it’s kind of wild how H and L are the only public figures I’ve seen where there’s such a clear disconnect between their public image and who they actually are—and that says a lot.

I think that’s why for most larries who’ve been around since the 1D days, some things just are. Like, they don’t even need to be explained, because we were there when it was all way more transparent. It’s like we’ve already got this established sense of who they are, how the industry works, and the patterns in all the inconsistencies.

Anyway, I just wanted to share that. I know it’s long, sorry lol. Thanks for reading and for still being around after all this time!

Hi, sugar. I wish all newer fans would read this and take it in because you’ve really hit the nail on the head. There’s so much nonsense cluttering this fandom that it’s very hard to see through and understand context.

And yes, some people sound like they’re making very sound arguments against Larry or against one or the other of them being a good person. But if you are able to clear that out and really watch and listen to both Harry and Louis, you can see there’s so much more than their public images.

Amy is still around. She just just got fed up with being jerked around and doesn’t talk about fandom stuff anymore. As far as I’m aware. And I still speak to Lorna. She only left for mental health reasons. I wish their blogs were still up because you’re right, they were extremely helpful when it came to navigating the chaos.

I’m glad you came back and that you were able to push through all of that. ❤️

[frameacloud]

A list of some alterhuman identities and groups (cut version)

About this article

This article is a five-minute read. It gives definitions and sources about (in alphabetical order) alterhumans, constelics, daemons, dragons, endels, furries, fictionfolk, nonhumans, otherkin, plural systems, therianthropes, tulpas, and vampires. These alterhuman community historians, archivists, and writers wrote this article together in August and September 2023: Orion Scribner, House of Chimeras, Page Shepard, Dinocanid, Ryuu Yumemoto, Draconic Wizard Workshop, and others. You have permission to repost this article, if you keep the list of authors, don't change what the article says, and don't use it for money. This is shared under this type of Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND).

Alterhumans

In 2014, Lio of the Crossroads System created this word as an umbrella term and identity for anyone who feels they have an identity beyond the scope of how one might typically think of “being human.”^1 Later, the alterhuman advocacy group Alt+H popularized this word. According to the coiner and Alt+H, it includes but is not limited to nonhumans.^2 Some groups who can opt-in to considering themselves under the alterhuman umbrella are otherkin, therianthropes, fictionfolk, plural systems, daemians, vampires, voluntary identities, furries, and more.^3 This umbrella is very broad because its purpose is to give these communities something to unite under without erasing their distinctions.^4

Constelic

Coined by Extranth in 2021, a person who is constelic identifies with or as one or more entities, objects, concepts, species, items, or characters throughout their life.^5 A constelic may collect or hoard any number of these identities for any number of reasons, as their identities are non-inherent and are considered to be entirely extrinsic.^6 Constels may be voluntary or involuntary identities,^7 and can be intense or casual, but they are often non-permanent.^8 

Daemians and daemons

Daemians are people who have daemons, which are most often described as mental constructs or a part of an individual’s consciousness which has been assigned a unique gender, form, and personality.^9 Some daemians consider themselves plural.^10 Their community started in 2002, inspired by Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials fantasy novel trilogy.^11

Dragons

The dragon community started in the 1990s in an online group called alt.fan.dragons.^12 They identify as dragons for spiritual or psychological reasons. They are draconic, and they refer to this part of themselves as their draconity.^13 In the 2000s, the dragon community started to mingle with the other communities: with dragon otherkin (dragonkin)^14 and dragon therians.^15

Endels

Mental health experts say that being alterhuman isn’t the same as being mentally ill.^16 For alterhumans who do have mental illnesses, that can be an important part of their everyday life and their sense of self. Endel is a word for alterhuman identities that are rooted in or greatly influenced by delusion. Babydog coined this word in 2021, by and for delusional alterhumans.^17

Furries

The furry fandom is a large subculture that began at sci-fi conventions in the 1980s.^18 It’s for creating and enjoying art, stories, costumes, and roleplay about fictional human-like (anthropomorphic) animal characters, called furries. Many fandom participants choose to represent themselves as their furry persona (fursona), which can be just for fun, though it can be meaningful about who they are.

Fictionfolk

Fictionfolk is an umbrella term for many sorts of identities that come partly or wholly from fiction.^19 Fictionkin identify as characters or species from fiction,^20 and their community started in the early 2000s.^21 A plural system member with origins from fiction is a fictive, which psychologists call a fictional introject.^22 When someone has the brief experience of becoming someone or something from fiction, that’s a fictionflicker, which psychologists call experience-taking.^23 

Nonhumans

An umbrella term for those of us who identify as partly or wholly not human: therianthropes, otherkin, and more. Many nonhumans opt to include themselves under the alterhuman umbrella.

Otherkin

Otherkin are elves, dragons, or other beings, usually from mythology. It’s always an important part of who they are throughout their lives, not role-play for fun.^24 The community started in the Elfinkind Digest mailing list in 1990, when they started calling themselves otherkind or otherkin.^25 Their reasons for being otherkin are often spiritual, for example, from reincarnation.^26 However, otherkin is not a religion.^27

Plural systems

Plurality (or multiplicity) is an umbrella term for all experiences and identities in which more than one entity, consciousness, or pseudo-consciousness exists within one physical body,^28 for systems who are or can be diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (DID), formerly called multiple personality disorder (MPD), as well as systems who do not meet those diagnostic criteria. Plurality and multiplicity as terms have always been inclusive of systems regardless of their origin or diagnoses.^29 Some plural systems have members who aren’t human or who are fictional characters or species.^30 Multiplicity can be an interchangeable synonym for plurality, or multiplicity can mean a form of plurality in which more than one person, self, or identity is within a single body.^31

Therianthropes

Therianthropes are people who have a lifelong identification as a certain species of animal on an integral, personal level.^32 Some are other species than animals from Earth.^33 The therian community started in 1993 in an online group, alt.horror.werewolves.^34 They developed jargon about shapeshifting to describe feeling more animal-like at some times. These changes are mental or spiritual, not physical.^35 Some have sensations of phantom limbs.^36 Some feel consistently animal-like at all times.^37 In the late 1990s and early 2000s, therians started mingling with the otherkin community.^38

Tulpas and tulpamancers

A tulpamancer is someone who practices tulpamancy, which is the act of creating tulpas.^39 A tulpa is an autonomous conscious entity who shares the body and brain of their creator.^40 Tulpamancy is often considered to be a part of the plurality umbrella.^41 

Vampire Community

The vampyre or vampire community (VC) is for people who identify as vampires and require sustenance.^42 Those who drain energy are energy vampires or psi-vampires.^43 Sanguinarians drink blood.^44 Hybrid vampires need both.^45 Vampire lifestylers and donors are in the VC, too.^46 

None of the above

Some participants of our communities are not themselves alterhumans. However, they’re here because they’re curious, or they’re our friends, family, and partners.

-

Endnotes

Please click to open this so you can read all of the sources that we cited. They are all here below.

1. Lio of the Crossroads System (September 26 2014). "This will probably be my last post on semantics..." Phasmovore. https://phasmovore.tumblr.com/post/98482696958/

2. Lio of the Crossroads System (May 27, 2023). https://x-rds.tumblr.com/post/712949341799727104/ Alt+H (September 17 2021) “What does alterhuman mean?” Alt+H. https://blog.alt-h.net/post/165592493965/what-does-alterhuman-mean

3. Kiera Ember. “Alterhuman Dictionary.” Beyond Humanity. https://www.beyondhumanity.net/alterhuman-dictionary/dictionary-a Ana Valens (September 25 2020). “Otherkin are the internet’s punchline. They’re also our future.” Daily Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/otherkin/  Alt+H, “FAQ” https://alt-h.net/educate/faq.php

4. Lio of the Crossroads System (February 19, 2023). https://x-rds.tumblr.com/post/709694807213211648/

5. Extranth. “An Introduction to Constelic” https://web.archive.org/web/20230519124625/https://constelic.carrd.co/

6. Extranth (May 19, 2021). “Constelic!” https://extranth.tumblr.com/post/651652168396472320/constelic-1-whats-constelic-constelic-or

7. Constelic (May 27, 2022). “How are Constelic and Otherlink different?” https://constelic.tumblr.com/post/685380822139813888/how-are-constelic-and-otherlink-different

8. Constelic (April 12, 2022). “The wild thing with stels for me is how sometimes…” https://constelic.tumblr.com/post/681308197084135424/the-wild-thing-with-stels-for-me-is-how-sometimes

9. The Daemon Page, “Introduction” https://daemonpage.com/introduction.php

10. Daemians & Daemons (March 18 2023). “Hey there! This is a bit of a discussion question…” https://www.tumblr.com/daemians-n-daemons/712142103972560896/hey-there-this-is-a-bit-of-a-discussion-question Rani (June 21 2022). “Okay so I was right dæmonism is turning into my…” A Dragon’s Journal. https://a-dragons-journal.tumblr.com/post/687725978250870784/okay-so-i-was-right-d%C3%A6monism-is-turning-into-my

11. House of Chimeras (October 8 2022). “A Timeline of the Daemon Community” pg. 3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GVSBMvwKIyTvDIqyqXy2C_7Q4Qx4UK3A/view 

12. ExistingPhantom (October 3 2001). “Alt.Fan.Dragons Frequently Asked Questions.” Dragons Must Be Here. https://web.archive.org/web/20050219002348/http://www.dmbh.org/dragonfire/IndexFAQ.html 

13. Baxil (December 1999). “Draconity FAQ.” Tomorrowlands. http://www.tomorrowlands.org/draconity/faq/index.html  Orion Scribner (September 8, 2012), Otherkin Timeline, version 2.0 http://frameacloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Scribner_Timeline2p0.pdf p. 36

14. Orion Scribner, Otherkin Timeline, p. 53.

15. Daski (August 17, 2022). “Therian: Dispelling the Earthen Animal Myth.” The River System. https://theriversystem.neocities.org/essays/EarthenMyth.html  

16. Gavia Baker-Whitelaw (February 22, 2015). “Understanding the otherkin.” The Kernel. Archived March 18, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150318110839/http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-sections/11866/otherkin-tumblr-definition-pronouns/ 

17. Babydog, “Endel” https://endel.carrd.co/ 

18. Fred Patten (July 15 2012). "Retrospective: An Illustrated Chronology of Furry Fandom, 1966–1996". Flayrah. https://www.flayrah.com/4117/retrospective-illustrated-chronology-furry-fandom-1966%E2%80%931996 

19. Poppy (January 24, 2023). “Quick guide to fictionfolk terminology.” Aestherians. https://aestherians.tumblr.com/post/707370073217695744/ 

20. Mordax. “What is Fictionkin? An exploratory definition”. From Fiction. https://web.archive.org/web/20220728060858/https://fromfiction.net/index.php/what-is-fictionkin-an-exploratory-definition/ 

21. House of Chimeras (June 21, 2021). A Timeline of the Fictionkin Community, Version 1.0. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w4vGsWkiGPjYtXvTe4PyCcZsPba1kb_p/view?usp=sharing Page 4.

22. Ryn (Aristocrats) (October 18, 2021). “Fictives: A short introduction” https://pluralsoapbox.wordpress.com/2021/10/18/fictives-a-short-introduction/  Sark (The Interstellar System) (August 9, 2021). “Fictive and Factive FAQ”  https://interstellarsystem.weebly.com/fictive-and-factive-faq.html 

23. Geoff F. Kaufman, Lisa K. Libby (2012). “Changing Beliefs and Behavior Through Experience-Taking.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012; DOI: 10.1037/a0027525 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0027525

24. Lupa (2007), A Field Guide to Otherkin, Stafford, England: Immanion Press, pp. 27, 108-109.

25. Arethinn (September 6, 2021). “A brief(ish) history of the word ‘otherkind’.” Mythsong. https://www.mythsong.net/history/wordhist.html 

26. Lupa, pp. 57-66, 287.

27. Lupa, p. 30; and Devin Proctor (May 2019), On Being Non-Human: Otherkin Identification and Virtual Space. The George Washington University. https://search.proquest.com/openview/e156c24bf65c4efb0918a8db37433cce/ pp. 94-95.

28. FreyasSpirit (Lucia Batman) and Irenes (Irene Knapp), “Plurality Playbook” https://freyasspirit.com/plurality-playbook/ 

29. LB Lee (May 28, 2020). “Quick'n'Dirty Plural History... Part 1 (1811-1980ish)” https://lb-lee.dreamwidth.org/1111069.html  LB Lee (June 30, 2020).”Plural History part 2: The Memory Wars” https://lb-lee.dreamwidth.org/1116190.html  LB Lee (July 30, 2020). “Plural History, part 3: Usenet and its spin-offs and Soulbonders” https://lb-lee.dreamwidth.org/1120824.html  LB Lee (August 31, 2020). “Quick'n'Dirty Plural History, part 4 (LJ, the Genic Slapfight, and THE END!)” https://lb-lee.dreamwidth.org/1129216.html 

30. House of Chimeras (May 1, 2021). “A Collection of Mentions of Nonhuman and Fictional-Based Members of Plural Systems” https://drive.google.com/file/d/17TKE_8Lx2ljuTpHNclvaXqvA5AAlkG90/view 

31. Manchester Metropolitan University, “Understanding Multiplicity” https://www.mmu.ac.uk/mmud8/media/10605/download 

32. Sonne (2008). “Terms and definitions.” Project Shift. https://projectshift.therianthropy.info/terms-definitions-by-sonne/ 

33. Daski (August 17, 2022). “Therian: Dispelling the Earthen Animal Myth.” The River System. https://theriversystem.neocities.org/essays/EarthenMyth.html  

34. House of Chimeras (19 November 2021). A Timeline of the Therianthrope Community, Version 1.1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jDmjl78hQ2BiQtzQMTV3yRQkrIgB9eUZ/view?usp=sharing P 9.

35. Clegg, H., Collings, R., & Roxburgh, E. C. (2019). “Therianthropy: Wellbeing, Schizotypy, and Autism in Individuals Who Self-Identify as Non-Human.” Society & Animals, 27(4), pp. 403-426. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341540

36. Jakkal (October 6, 2001). “Therianthropy- an overview." Shifters.org. Archived 2002-11-10. https://web.archive.org/web/20021101165313/http://www.shifters.org/overview/therianthropy.asp

37. Akhila (April 2005). “The Contherian FAQ.” https://akhila.feralscribes.org/2005/the-contherian-faq/ 

38. House of Chimeras (November 19, 2021). A Timeline of the Therianthrope Community, Version 1.1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jDmjl78hQ2BiQtzQMTV3yRQkrIgB9eUZ/view?usp=sharing Pp. 27, 56.

39. Tulpa.io, “Terminologies” https://web.archive.org/web/20160405214050/http://tulpa.io/terminologies 

40. Luigi.exe/The Dragonheart Collective (January 12, 2020). “Tulpamancy FAQ” https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Yb6dfm4JxR5u_oNpHrttJyJHc0NvMhkKUP4Btc4jPc/edit#heading=h.h3onkkn

41. Tulpa.io, “What Is A Tulpa?” https://web.archive.org/web/20160318054103/http://tulpa.io/what-is-a-tulpa 

42. Jayden Night, “What is Vampirism?” https://web.archive.org/web/20080511200648/http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/articles/jn-vamprism.html 

43. Fvorboda, “Psy Vampirism” https://web.archive.org/web/20080513030621/http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/articles/dyscracia-psivamps.html 

44. #Sanguinarius IRC (May 26, 2007). “A Discussion of Sang and Psi Vampires” https://web.archive.org/web/20080108215555/http://www.sanguinarius.org/articles/sang-and-psi-disc.shtml 

45. Enygma, “Real Vampires” https://web.archive.org/web/20080511201408/http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/faq/most-enygma.html 

46. Sanguinarius: The Vampire Support Page, (July 4, 2006). “Sainguinarus Terminology & Lingo” https://web.archive.org/web/20080521005735/http://www.sanguinarius.org/terminology.shtml

[tuquidflamingo]

Look! Some of my old Doffy sketches! (most of my old art is stored at my parents' and sister’s house, so I have no idea how these ended up coming with me to the new place 🤣)

I remember doing the first one in high school, so it's probably from 2007-2008 (definitely before Sabaody). Then come three relics obviously inspired by the beach panel from Sabaody (the last one might have been done around the Marineford arc, notice how the gold chain was already a thing for me since ancient times 🤣🤣🤣). The last two were made during Law's flashback, so I'm sure they date back to october or november 2014 (Roci is wearing the Marine coat 🤣)

Sometimes I really miss my old style not so influenced by american superhero comics, I think I was doing a pretty good job with profiles 🥲🥲 (I nearly stopped drawing shortly after that aside from a couple of brief appearances in other fandoms, so I'm super glad to have picked up my favorite hobby again 😊)

[babybells123]

Regarding the original outline + some thoughts on Jon & Sansa… 

This is a long one. Buckle up.

If there is one thing I have picked up on in the ASOIAF fandom, it’s the knee-jerk negative reaction towards any theory/parallel/connection between Jon and Sansa. This was exacerbated by the show, of course but even now - five years later, there is an insane amount of vitriol that my brain is unable to comprehend. And here’s the rub; the infamous 1993 outline is the irony of it all. 

In a fandom that is a-okay with *certain* incest ships (r.e D@enerys x Jon, D@emon x Rh@enyra, Jon x Aria), as well as blatantly pedophilic ships (Sansa x S@ndor, Sansa x Littlefinger, Sansa x Tyrio*), how is Jon x Sansa the worst of them all? I’m going to pin it down to audience engagement with the show, particularly around the later seasons when Jon + Sansa reunite and people began to ‘ship’ them. So many believe that is how the ship took off, and thus it is mere crack - but there are posts tracking back to 2012/2013 theorising the possibility of Jon x Sansa. Was it spurred by the show? Certainly! But it does not take away from the fact that people were making valid arguments and essays before the general fandom was even comprehending a Jon and Sansa reunion on screen. And people were open to discussing/debating it with general civility (a far cry from today). 

I’m 90% certain people weren’t criticising those who began to believe in Jon x Aria when the outline was leaked…(though there were most definitely shippers before). But we never see the same level of vitriol towards Jon x Aria shippers, which is strange. 

In any case, let’s talk about said outline, some of the key points - and how I believe GRRM made the switch from Jon x Aria to Jon x Sansa. I’ll be drawing from GRRM’s past works, interviews, art, and his personal life - as well as other potential literary influences. I'll be linking metas along the way, but without further ado - let's go.

In October 1993, GRRM wrote a pitch outline for a publishing company. It was three pages long and conveyed alongside the first thirteen chapters of AGOT (170 pages). The three paged letter was leaked on twitter in February 2014, though there were multiple aspects parts blacked out. Keep in mind though, this may not be the *only* outline that exists. There are multiple outlines that have never been publicly released (and will likely remain that way). 

But let’s just focus on the 1993 outline, since we’re privy to the details. The thirteen chapters attached to the outline did *not* yet have a Sansa POV, and that’s because in this outline, she wasn’t listed as a key character.

The key characters were; Bran, Jon, Tyrion, D@enerys, and Aria.  

The first thirteen chapters were; Prologue; Bran I, Catelyn I, D@enerys I, Eddard I, Jon I, Catelyn II, Aria I, Bran II, Tyrion I, Jon II, D@enerys II, Eddard II, Tyrion II. 

I’ve seen people claim that Sansa isn’t an important character since she wasn’t listed as a key character, but they conveniently leave out the fact that a) her chapters were not yet written, b)she was given an entirely different more passive storyline in this outline, c) she dies, d) this was far far before GRRM fleshed out his characters entirely - Sansa took on a life of her own and she became her own solid complex character with an arc in 4 out of 5 of the books; 25 chapters. 

In fact, since the books have been published GRRM has regarded Sansa and the Starks as a main character as well;

Collider: In creating this world, did you start out with one family and then branch off into the rest of the world?

GRRM: Well, the Starks are certainly the centre of the story, when it begins. It all begins at Winterfell, with occasional cuts to Daenerys across the ocean, because there was no way I could get her into Winterfell. But, we bring all the characters together at Winterfell, and they’re all there for a while before they start to go their separate ways ... .But, the Starks are the centre of the book and, to a lesser extent, the Lannisters. They are still the major players. 

Collider: When you went into this, did you intentionally take the children, put them in an adult setting and force them to be in very adult and complex situations?

GRRM: Yeah, the children were always at the heart of this. The Stark children, in particular, were always very central. Bran is the first viewpoint character that we meet, and then we meet Jon and Sansa and Arya and the rest of them. It was always my intention to do that.” 

Collider report.

May 2016 - Balticon. 

(…) George said he was “pissed” that the outline was posted in the office building and that someone took photos and shared them. He said it was a letter for him and the publisher only. He was very firm when telling this and it showed on his face.

He then said that he is not good with writing outlines, making book deadlines, and that often in outlines he was “making shit up”, and “characters changed along the way”.

He went straight from talking about the references in the actual books, to the “differences” in the outline from then to now. He did say that he still knows who sits the iron throne and the end game of the main 5, but also included Sansa, but did not give any details (for obvious reasons).

[question if he is still going with the 1991 ending]

“Yes, I mean, I did partly joke when I said I don’t know where I was going. I know the broad strokes, and I’ve known the broad strokes since 1991. I know who’s going to be on the Iron Throne. I know who’s gonna win some of the battles, I know the major characters, who’s gonna die and how they’re gonna die, and who’s gonna get married and all that. The major characters. 

….

“So a lot of the minor characters I’m still discovering along the way. But the mains-”

[question if he knows Arya’s and Jon’s fates]

“Tyrion, Arya, Jon, Sansa, you know, all of the Stark kids, and the major Lannisters, yeah.”

Balticon report:

“Ah, how innocent I was… little did that guy in the picture imagine that he would be spending most of the next two decades in the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros with Tyrion, Daenerys, Arya, Sansa, Jon Snow, Bran, and all the rest.”

GRRM's live journal:

So Sansa has clearly developed into an important character from GRRM’s words, and the key-characters argument can cease, because It’s very tiring to dispel that when the characters and story took on a life of its own. (I mean, Jaime was meant to remain a villain, but he was clearly given somewhat of a redemption arc in the main series).

I paraphrased what was written here for this whole section, so go check out the longer post!

The Aria in the original outline: 

*NOTE: I am blacking out her actual names in case the wrong people find this post. None of this anti her, please keep that in mind.*

Five central characters will make it through all three volumes, [...] The five key players are Tyrion Lannister, D@enerys Targaryen, and three of the children of Winterfell, Aria, Bran, and the bastard Jon Snow. 

Joffrey will not be sympathetic and Ned [what appears to say] will be accused of treason, but before he is taken he will help his wife and his daughter Aria escape back to Winterfell.

Tyrion Lannister, meanwhile, will befriend both Sansa and her sister Aria, while growing more and more disenchanted with his own family.

When Winterfell burns, Catelyn Stark will be forced to flee north with her son Bran and her daughter Aria. Wounded by Lannister riders, they will seek refuge at the Wall, but the men of the Night's Watch give up their families when they take the black, and Jon and Benjen will not be able to help, to Jon's anguish. It will lead to a bitter estrangement between Jon and Bran. 

Aria will be more forgiving ... until she realises, with terror, that she has fallen in love with Jon, who is not only her half-brother but a man of the Night's Watch, sworn to celibacy. Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Aria throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book.

Abandoned by the Night's Watch, Catelyn and her children will find their only hope of safety lies even further north, beyond the Wall, where they fall into the hands of Mance Rayder, the King-beyond-the-Wall, and get a dreadful glimpse of the inhuman others as they attack the wilding encampment. Bran's magic, Aria's sword Needle, and the savagery of their direwolves will help them survive, but their mother Catelyn will die at the hands of the others.

Exiled, Tyrion will change sides, making common cause with the surviving Starks to bring his brother down, and falling helplessly in love with Aria Stark while he's at it. His passion is, alas, unreciprocated, but no less intense for that, and it will lead to a deadly rivalry between Tyrion and Jon Snow

Observations:

Exactly how old is Aria? Is she a warrior princess who cries at songs like her aunt? Does she enjoy/yearn for romance? Is she a stunningly beautiful maiden rivalling that of Cersei? How close were she and Jon? Did they have a good sibling relationship? Or were they distant? Does she look physically different to Jon? Does she have red hair? 

The Sansa of the Original Outline:

‘Each of the contending families will learn it has a member of dubious loyalty in its midst. Sansa Stark, wed to Joffrey Baratheon, will bear him a son, the heir to the throne, and when the crunch comes she will choose her husband and child over her parents and siblings, a choice she will later bitterly rue.’ 

Tyrion Lannister, meanwhile, will befriend both Sansa and her sister Aria, while growing more and more disenchanted with his own family.

Jaime Lannister will follow Joffrey on the throne of the Seven Kingdoms, by the simple expedient of killing everyone ahead of him in the line of succession and blaming his brother Tyrion for the murders. 

More observations:

How old is Sansa? Is she 16? 17? She’s conveyed as a less important character in this outline - why? Queen of the Seven Kingdoms? She dies? Jaime kills her? What is her relationship with Aria like? Are/were they close? Or was Sansa initially meant to be a two-tone villain who betrayed her family? Is she overwhelmingly beautiful? Or is she the plainer sister? 

It’s quite clear that both ASOIAF Aria and ASOIAF Sansa are entirely different characters to their outlined counterparts. 

In the outline, Tyrion sacks and burns Winterfell. In ASOIAF, It’s Theon and later Ramsay who does this. In the outline, it’s Bran, Aria, and Catelyn who go beyond the Wall. In ASOIAF, it’s Bran, Meera, and Jojen (and Hodor). There are a couple of other changes made here, but there seems a pattern where certain acts *still* occur in the main series, they’re just given to different characters (which makes sense, as GRRM grows organically with his characters.)

So, when we take into account the fact of ASOIAF Sansa being considered a main/key character, her marriage to Tyrion, and the possibility of her being the first to reunite with Jon - perhaps GRRM did keep a Stark x Snow romance - but gave it to a different sister. 

In the 2016 Balticon report, GRRM stated he wished that ‘some past things didn’t have such strong foreshadowing and that newer things had stronger foreshadowing.’ You can make a case for J0nrya foreshadowing in the first book, but I’d argue that ACOK/ASOS is where the Jon/Sansa clues and foreshadowing is rife. (and there are certainly Jon/Sansa clues in the first book as well.) 

Now to circle back. The Aria of this outline doesn’t have a personality - none of the characters do, really. We don’t know how old she is. Is she a teenager? Is she close in age to Jon? We know she has her needle, so can infer she is a fighter and spirited, but is there a soft romantic side to her? Does she cry at songs like her aunt Lyanna? Does she yearn for love? Is she immensely beautiful? For a narrative like this? It'd be likely if Jon and Tyrion are fighting to the death over her, sort of like gallant knights fighting each other to win the heart of a fair maiden (very romantic and idealistic, mirroring the songs and the stories).

(This is how I am certainly inferring such a scene would have gone).

The ASOIAF Aria we know and love took on a life of her own. She’s described as plain looking (some envision her to be more beautiful than characters like D@ny, Cersei, and Sansa though). - But just quickly on that matter, Aria is indeed compared to Lyanna in looks and spirit, though Lyanna’s beauty was described as wild and implied as non-conventional; different perspectives have different opinions on her. For example, Cersei, Jaime, Devan, the Maester who wrote the WOIAF don’t consider her anything special. Whereas Ned, Robert, and Rhaegar do. So it’s one of those instances where you aren’t exactly sure. In any case, Aria's looks aren't a driving factor in her arc, and I don’t see ASOIAF Tyrion (as creepy as he is) suddenly falling in love with her due to mere attraction because presently, Aria is all knobbly knees and elbows, stick thin, a child, not a maiden, who will still be a pre-teen at the end of the series, if there is no massive time jump.

SHE'S JUST A BABY.

But then, Tyrion did lust after Sansa, so there’s that… however ….

Sansa’s beauty is a driving force in her narrative arc. She is objectified for her beauty. Preyed upon because of her beauty; in many ways it causes her to suffer. It’s largely why LF is grossly infatuated with her - she’s beautiful like Catelyn. Tyrion is attracted to Sansa and wishes to bed her, the H0und intends to rape her during the Blackwater battle, he also comments on her breasts growing, Joffrey sexually humiliates her in court, Ser Dontos has a pervy infatuation with her, Cersei despises Sansa because she is younger, more beautiful etc which she views as a threat.

So, beauty is pertinent to Sansa’s narrative, and it isn’t vain or shallow to say so because it’s a large part as to why she suffers. And her physical beauty is meant to compliment her indulgence in romantic idealism; knights, chivalry, courtly love, beautiful appearances thus equating to good people. It also contributes to perceptions of Sansa; nothing more than a pretty, stupid girl with naive dreams. 

So back to ASOIAF Aria: Her arc largely surrounds nature & nature, mercy, war trauma and survival, friendship, belonging, and family. For the majority of the story, she is a traumatised 10 year old travelling through a war torn country, witness to awful horrors, forced to assume multiple identities, until she goes to Braavos and begins her faceless man arc. But this is obviously not her endgame - she is going to go home eventually, that is quite clear.

You can argue she had a little crush on Gendry (as a 10 year old would) (and perhaps something may happen with him when she is older, I think GRRM has played with it.) But other than that, romance is not a central part of Aria's arc insofar. For outline Aria it was, but current ASOIAF Aria is on a completely different tangent all together.

(and that poor poor child is suffering immensely while this is all occurring).  Currently, she has no time for/interest in it. She hasn’t been involved in betrothals/marriages, or had men lusting after her (save ‘Mercy’ and people men making brutalising sexual comments towards her). She disguises herself as a boy for a good chunk of the story as it is safer to travel.

No, I’m not trying to reduce any sexual trauma/objectification she suffers, she’s a little girl for heaven’s sake - I’m merely stating that what she is going through is in some ways similar and different to what Sansa is going through. (Who currently is in a in a very Lolita type situation with LF and men sexually intimidating/abusing her has been a key part of her arc - as I said, she suffers significantly due to her beauty. She is something to possess, she isn't real or tangible, she is a beautiful maid with a vast claim to the North.)

Anyway, ASOIAF Aria finds songs and romance ‘stupid.’ 

“Sansa would have shed a tear for true love, but Arya just thought it was stupid.” (Arya VIII ASOS) 

 (but that doesn’t mean she won’t encounter it later in life, it just means that at this point of the story, she isn’t interested/likely won't encounter some epic grand romance that outline Aria was likely destined for. (And she’s 11 for god’s sake!).

‘But Sansa was dreaming of love at that age!’

Sansa has been a romantic idealistic dreamer since she was a little girl. She adored those stories and is the literal embodiment of the mediaeval pre-raphaelite maiden depicted in art. It’s central to her story arc, to her qualities, and how she functions/copes with things around her. “Life is not a song.” Is so fundamental to that.

So to reiterate ASOIAF Aria is a completely different character to outline Aria- for all we know OG Aria was 15 years old, very beautiful to the point of men duelling over her, (just as depicted in art above) likely a romantic heroine, had consistent memory lapses that would cause her to “realise in terror, she had fallen for Jon,” and based off of GRRM’s past works - was probably a redhead. 

“But OG Aria has a sword named needle!”

Indeed, but as I stated, we don’t know anything else about her beyond that. Many have theorised that D@ny and Jon are the epic romance of the series, but it’s clear from this particular outline that GRRM intended for it to be Aria and Jon as the epic major romance of the series. That would mean Aria would have to be a somewhat romantically-inclined character, for this development to appear natural and not forced. Based on her current ASOIAF arc, it doesn’t track for her character to make a sudden 180. Her softness and vulnerable moments come from thinking of her family and home. Insofar, this isn’t equated to yearning for love, romance, children, as Sansa has done from the beginning of the series.

Now, we know GRRM is a self-proclaimed romantic, and ASOIAF Sansa exists very much as a deconstruction of romanticism. 

“He said he is a romantic, in the classical sense. He said the trouble with being a romantic is that from a very early age you keep having your face smashed into the harshness of reality. That things aren’t always fair, bad things happen to good people, etc. he said it’s a realistic world, so romantics are burned quite often. This theme of romantic idealism conflicting with harsh reality is something he finds very dramatic and compelling, and he weaves it into his work.” (2005 interview).

Sansa is arguably, the embodiment of this dismantling. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that love isn’t real, or that it doesn’t deserve to exist in a gritty world such as Westeros. There were many couples who had good, happy marriages, even after war and loss and trauma. For example, apart from the Jon Snow situation, Ned and Catelyn had a remarkably healthy relationship. So it is possible - the takeaway from the series is not that hoping is meaningless, dreams are meaningless, love is meaningless. More so that it is complicated, and it must coexist alongside all the chaos in order to achieve a sort of

equilibrium. A literal ‘Dream of Spring’ a hope for happiness, rather than happiness itself. It tracks with the bittersweet conclusion to the series ; it is a grimdark story, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be a grimdark ending where everyone good and noble dies and wishes/dreams/innate desires remain unfulfilled. 

In fact, I argue that a lot of them will come true - but at what cost? It’ll be at the cost of loss and grief, of suffering upon suffering, but what’s inherently more powerful, what’s more subversive is having those characters persist and rebuild, regenerate, create a new world where love and chaos undoubtedly exist alongside each other, but just because there is chaos, that does not mean the love is miniscule or cancels out entirely. 

Because if all these characters have the most unsatisfying, awful conclusions known to man, well - what was the point of everything? What was the point of their journeys? This isn’t a nihilistic story, and it won’t have a nihilistic ending like everyone assumes. It’s far more difficult for an author to craft such an ending, balancing things out whilst acknowledging all the loss and still holding out hope for a better future to come. That brighter days will arrive. That winter will end, and spring will be on the horizon.

“We may lose our heads, it’s true. But what if we prevail?” (Davos I ADWD). 

And that right there, sums it up perfectly. 

So you need characters like Sansa, characters like Brienne, D@ny, (you know what let’s just add all the Stark children of the series to the list, because every single character arc is about remaining resilient and prevailing in some way or another). 

But it’s Sansa who exists as the meta character that embodies/indulges in all those romantic ideals that GRRM is intent on exploring - it thus makes perfect sense for it to be her that experiences the romance arc. Many people think she’ll end up with the H0und, or Harry the douchebag, because it’s a part of her growing up, maturing, learning from her negative biases etc etc but she shouldn’t have to be with abusive or douchy men to learn that. She’s already learned and suffered enough. 

“It is my claim they want. No one will ever marry me for love.”

And how utterly heartbreaking that she has resigned to think this, with her arc only mid-way. But importantly, just a few chapters later she enters the garden of undisputed beauty and equates the snow landing on her face with romantic kisses, she dreams of innocence and winterfell, despite lamenting how she doesn’t belong in such a pure world, she steps out into it all the same. And she builds her home in the snow, content and for once - she’s the child she is, the child she is yearning to be.

So Sansa falling in love with Jon makes sense on a characteristic level. It’s something she never would have considered as a sheltered child, not just because he’s her bastard half brother but because he just didn’t exist in her idea of how the world works. He didn’t fit in with her idea of knights, and courtly love and chivalry. He wasn’t a gallant golden prince, he was dark, sulky and brooding. He existed on the parameters of her life, and she was comfortable with that distant association - but she still loved him, and he her. 

Falling in love with Jon would equate to a dismantling of these previous prejudices  she held; he’s utterly unconventional, the opposite of what she has shown attraction to (despite her first ‘love’ being Waymar Royce, who resembles Jon strikingly). The man she never really considered beyond courtesy and some scarce, fond memories - to be the one who restores her faith in men, in love, in dreams. 

“Realising with terror that she has fallen in love with Jon… their passion will continue to torment them.” 

tracks with Sansa’s characterisation particularly, her memory lapses, her clouded judgement, and inability to interpret things correctly (and something as confusing as this would certainly cause her to have some cognitive dissonance going on).

Not to mention caution around well… men. Because who would ever marry her for love? Who would ever take her for true? Love her without expectations and judgement? It’s Jon. Who has been there since the very beginning, who has been a silent unconscious hero, the answer to her prayers, who embodies all those romantic and knightly ideals she has so desperately wanted - despite her being unaware. Who has advocated for her claim - above everyone else.

“No one will ever marry me for love.” And that infamous Jon chapter follows. Jon who is never quite far from Sansa’s suitors. Jon, who has a similar dream of rebuilding Winterfell, of having children named after lost siblings, who wants to woo a girl by giving her a rose and loving beneath the heart tree - the heart of Winterfell. Who would undeniably want to have that beautiful soul-nourishing love he never received as a child, that he believes is perpetually unavailable to him. 

Above all,  they just fit together. It fits with GRRM’s William Faulkner-esque “the human heart in conflict with itself".” And this is a perfectly subversive way of  encapsulating that Jon confusing brotherly love and affection with romance, struggling with the shame of it all - especially post-resurrection, the religious disillusionment that would occur, the notion of Jon being loved by the kind of girl he believed he never had the right to, who his deeply romantic heart is yearned for. (There is a reason GRRM let us know how badly Jon yearns for domesticity, Winterfell love, children, and a wife. He associates his love for Ygritte with her singing, her hair, her smile. He dreams of her tending to him with gentle hands) The simple yet meaningful things that have been denied to him because of his bastardry. And god, what better way to torment these two than by having them fall for each other - realising they fit each other so perfectly, yet tormented by their familial relation. Until, as the outline puts, the parentage is revealed. 

Do I believe they will act on their feelings pre-parentage reveal? No. It’ll likely exist in the subtext, in private thoughts and actions. Angst, guilt. Again, the stuff that GRRM loves - the human heart is in conflict with itself. 

Much like Lord Byron’s ‘The Bride of Abydos.” Where half-siblings fall in love with each other until they realise they are actually cousins. Lord Byron, who was famously in love with his half sister Augusta, who was a stranger to him for a good portion of his life until they properly got to know each other and fell in love. (Who does that sound like?’)

And if you’re wondering how Jon and Sansa could possibly connect to Lord Byron, well there is a ‘Byron the Beautiful’ in Alayne II AFFC, and Alayne I TWOW. GRRM has further instilled characters by the name of “Manfred” which is in reference to Lord Byron’s infamous work of the same name. (I urge you to check out all of Cappy's Byron metas, they are fantastic.

And, Jon has been called a “Brooding, Byronic, romantic heroine whom all the girls love.” GRRM knows what Byronic is inferring - he isn’t daft, he’s a writer - he reads other works and takes influence and sprinkles in so many things. 

A Byronic character involves:

. . romantic melancholy, guilt for secret sin, pride, defiance, restlessness, alienation, revenge, remorse, moodiness, and such noble virtues as honor, altruism, courage, and pure love for a gentle woman. (Poetry Foundation, Lord Byron)

“GRRM: I was always intensely Romantic, even when I was too young to understand what that meant. But Romanticism has its dark side, as any Romantic soon discovers… which is where the melancholy comes in, I suppose. I don’t know if this is a matter of artistic influences so much as it is of temperament. But there’s always been something in the twilight that moves me, and a sunset speaks to me in a way that no sunrise ever has.”

Infinity plus:

And isn’t that exactly what he would be exploring with Jon and Sansa? It isn’t a conventional romance by any means. It could never exist normally until Jon’s parentage is revealed. And that is the tormented nature of it, that is the “bittersweetness” of it - it is rooted in realism, yes - and that to me, is Sansa receiving her true love, countering that no one would ever marry her for love. The gods will grant it to her, - but it’s wrapped up in this darker, morally ambiguous thing that is confusing for her, even though Jon would be her dream come true - he isn’t this neat little courtly golden package, but he embodies all those ideals more than any man she’s actually met. 

It’s subversive to what both the characters and the readers expect, and it’s just a brilliant plot twist that screams unpredictability whilst fitting together like a perfect puzzle. It creates internal conflict and evokes those themes that GRRM loves to explore. By giving the ‘heroes’ of the series a motif such as incest is extremely bold; because it challenges the reader greatly. Some people don’t want Jon to end up with Sansa because it contradicts the image that they have of him in his head - the heroic male who will save the world with his heroic counterpart and together they shall rule the seven kingdoms. To embrace his father’s family, claim a dragon, fulfil the prophecy, be the third head of the dragon, reject his stark-ness. Very predictable. Done to death a thousand times over, and yet - it is what the general audience wants/expects. It’s what the dudebros who call him the ‘GOAT’ want, it’s what the Targ stans want, it’s what the show watchers wanted - but what does Jon want? 

“Yet he could not let the wildlings breach the Wall, to threaten Winterfell and the north, the barrowlands and the Rills, White Harbor and the Stony Shore, even the Neck. For eight thousand years the men of House Stark had lived and died to protect their people against such ravagers and reavers . . . and bastard-born or no, the same blood ran in his veins. Bran and Rickon are still at Winterfell besides. Maester Luwin, Ser Rodrik, Old Nan, Farlen the kennelmaster, Mikken at his forge and Gage by his ovens . . . everyone I ever knew, everyone I ever loved.” (Jon II ASOS). 

“I would need to steal her if I wanted her love, but she might give me children. I might someday hold a son of my own blood in my arms. A son was something Jon Snow had never dared dream of, since he decided to live his life on the Wall. I could name him Robb. Val would want to keep her sister's son, but we could foster him at Winterfell, and Gilly's boy as well. Sam would never need to tell his lie. We'd find a place for Gilly too, and Sam could come visit her once a year or so. Mance's son and Craster's would grow up brothers, as I once did with Robb.

"He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me. It was a hunger inside him, sharp as a dragonglass blade.” (Jon XII ASOS). 

“Red eyes, Jon realised, but not like Melisandre's. He had a weirwood's eyes. Red eyes, red mouth, white fur. Blood and bone, like a heart tree. He belongs to the old gods, this one. And he alone of all the direwolves was white. Six pups they'd found in the late summer snows, him and Robb; five that were grey and black and brown, for the five Starks, and one white, as white as Snow.”

He had his answer then." (Jon XII ASOS)

“He was the blood of Winterfell, a man of the Night's Watch. I will not father a bastard, he told her. I will not. I will not. "You know nothing, Jon Snow," she whispered.” (Jon VI ASOS)

“Ygritte answered for him. "His name is Jon Snow. He is Eddard Stark's blood, of Winterfell." (Jon VIII ACOK)

"Then you must do what needs be done," Qhorin Halfhand said. "You are the blood of Winterfell and a man of the Night's Watch." (Jon VI ASOS). 

“You can't be the Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born, he heard Robb say again. And the stone kings were growling at him with granite tongues. You do not belong here. This is not your place. When Jon closed his eyes he saw the heart tree, with its pale limbs, red leaves, and solemn face. The weirwood was the heart of Winterfell, Lord Eddard always said . . . but to save the castle Jon would have to tear that heart up by its ancient roots, and feed it to the red woman's hungry fire god. I have no right, he thought. Winterfell belongs to the old gods.” (Jon XII ASOS) 

“He sat on the bench and buried his head in his hands. Why am I so angry? he asked himself, but it was a stupid question. Lord of Winterfell. I could be the Lord of Winterfell. My father's heir.” (Jon XII ASOS).

“If I could show her Winterfell . . . give her a flower from the glass gardens, feast her in the Great Hall, and show her the stone kings on their thrones. We could bathe in the hot pools, and love beneath the heart tree while the old gods watched over us.” (Jon V ASOS). 

“If he must perish, let it be with a sword in his hand, fighting his father's killers. He was no true Stark, had never been one … but he could die like one. Let them say that Eddard Stark had fathered four sons, not three.” (Jon IX AGOT).

Look, at the end of the day - we don't know how the story will go, but based off of Jon’s character arc? His thoughts? His actions? His relationships with his siblings? The fact that he has warged into a magical beast directly associated with Starks? The North? The Old Gods? The weir wood trees? I think that instead of GRRM having Jon go down the conventional disadvantaged male hero finding out he is a secret prince and thus becoming King and a proper Targ, GRRM will subvert expectations (much to audience displeasure) and do the opposite.

Learning of his true identity will just cause more angst and a major identity crisis. The one thing Jon finds real and solid, that no one can take from him - is that he is Ned Stark’s son. He raised him. Perhaps they don’t share a direct blood link. But that doesn’t matter, what matters is that he was raised by him, loved by him. So instead of choosing his father’s family; embracing the secret prince persona and fighting for the throne - he’ll choose his mother’s family. And I think that is beautifully conclusive.

But back to Jon and Sansa. GRRM is given the opportunity to explore the sort of impact this incest motif has on fundamentally good people. And I think this is what he originally intended to do with Jon and Aria.

Yes, we have Jaime and Cersei, but this is real sibling incest and rife with toxic narcissism, possession etc. We have the T@rgaryens, which are messy beyond belief and practice it due to blood purity. 

But Jon and Sansa clearly differ from the rest, and that is because they exist partly as foils as to what we previously have seen. Similar to Jonnel x Sansa. By intentionally refraining from the development of a properly-close sibling relationship, making Jon and Sansa fundamental opposites visually, and associating them with entirely different cultures (yet writing their core personas as the same, their dreams compatible, their thought process and idealism similar).

GRRM manages to pave the way into such a romance that comes as a shock to the characters, the narrative, and readers themselves. Because no one, absolutely no one would see it coming, and the people who have been privy to the theory - immediately dismiss it - and become quite angry when it is brought up. Like I said earlier, a knee-jerk reaction. 

To quote this brilliant meta right here:

‘Whether Jon and Sansa fall in love is up to the author and his intended exploration of literary/mythic themes that his predecessors have deployed. He is not writing from (or for) the moral values of show watchers and book readers, or their anecdotal hopes for how things “should be.” He’s writing a narrative that breaks away from conventional storytelling and what we expect from such characters.’

…

‘ I don’t believe the author is giving up completely on the romantic dream. He has made Sansa more cautious, converted her dreams into mere prayers, and has forced her to examine her assumptions, but he’s not turning her into the H0und, who is too pessimistic and fatalistic as a suitor. Sandor’s assertion that all knights are killers makes fantasy so small, it’s eliminated. I think he is setting Sansa on a path where her dreams do die, and her life becomes about as romantic as that smokestack in Cleveland - until they start to come alive again when she travels North to the Wall.’

'That cold, hard reality is still present in the fact that they are brother and sister, but once Jon’s parentage is revealed, this will change. Like an inverted Cinderella (clock striking 12), the reality will become fantasy again. But it’s still inladen with this bitter reality of their relations. So taking this into account, I believe Jon and Sansa could happen because there is no other couple in the series with which GRRM can explore his fascination with fantasy becoming “smaller,” but not completely shrinking altogether. There are no two better characters who represent these ideas, who have the same quietly domestic desires - who do not (at the moment) actively lust for power and cause it to blind them.'

So in essence, Jon and Sansa exist as the subversion of romance. In a twisted, loving sort of way that is morally conflicting to the characters and audiences (for a time). That has existed between the lines, subtly and implicitly. That the audience gives absolutely no thought, because why would they? And if they do, they are abhorred by it - but I’d argue this is the entire point. But not for the reasons you think, not because of the incest - or J0nerys would disgust them.

From the moment he started the series, GRRM has employed incest as a major motif that impacts both the narrative and the characters - the causes the war, that contributes to T@rgaryen values, legacy etc, that propels aspects of narcissism and vitriol for characters like Cersei. It’s really really interesting stuff, as uncomfortable as it is - there are no other works that explore it so messily and beautifully with such nuance. 

I believe people seriously underestimate GRRM’s use of omission and subtext. Seriously, just because something is not explicitly stated, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Unfortunately fans have such a surface level reading of the text, that they are unable to peel back the layers and get to its core. They don’t consider literary influences, or art, or the Romantic movement or anything. They claim they want a complex story that is subversive, yet they cheer for the three-headed dragon theory and all the most predictable plot points that have been absolutely done to death. But then they turn up their noses at anything that goes against the grain, or insinuates otherwise.  

R + L = J is a great example of existence within the subtext, yet nobody denies that it is there. No one is called crazy or delusional for it. Ned never thinks of Jon’s true parentage despite harbouring that secret for years, because it is buried deep in his subconscious.

And much to the audience’s surprise (and dismay I'm sure) that is how Jon and Sansa will manifest. This is the human heart in conflict with Jon and Sansa, but not just them - the readers as well. It’s pointing to us, asking us how we’ll possibly handle it. We’re meant to feel this conflict of emotions - anguish and torment and yet hope for something ineffable - just like the characters.

To be able to evoke that as a writer is one of the most impressive feats I can think of - and for the majority of it to exist at this point, in a subconscious limbo?  How utterly complex and painful and raw and intelligent but oh so very brilliant. Perhaps one of the most compelling things to come out of this entire series, if only the general audience was open to such discussions. But alas, we must contend with the community we have, and hope for a dream of spring to come upon us. 

[dadvans]

u influenced me to try 911 so i’m dipping my toe in by watching a buck tommy compilation on youtube and i can’t believe in all the posts ive seen about tommy’s house i haven’t seen anyone mention he has a car ramp (so u know he changes his own oil) and a boxing ring in his garage???

so proud to get another person lost in the 911 sauce 🥲 hope you're having fun so far!

i feel like eddie describing tommy's house + tommy's initial reaction to buck's loft lead a lot of us to independently come to the same conclusion that tommy lives in some kind of fixer-upper that he bought 2008-09 when the housing market crashed, because he somehow can afford a place with a CAR RIG and an ATTACHED GYM, but is still like "wow evan they must be paying you well!" when he shows up at buck's loft. either he was trying to butter buck up extra, or, like a lot of us believe, he flipped a complete piece of shit in a decent neighborhood. i know i wrote this out in "an outlier that should not be counted," and my headcanon is firmly rooted in knowledge gained from dating a guy in real estate/construction/renovations around 2009 - 2014, but it was really funny to see so many of us take the same context clues and come to the same conclusion. tommy's house is definitely something a lot of us are writing about! it remains the ultimate enigma.

in the show, tommy's house is rumored to be featured this season due to a BTS pic. having seen the pic, i have so many thoughts and feelings about it from simply a set design perspective and would be delighted if it were real.

[superlinguo]

In praise of niche papers

Mark Dingemanse's blog post "In praise of niche papers" is a lovely way to share academic influences. It got me thinking about some of my favourite papers that I love and cite, and which I'm always surprised to see aren't as highly cited as some other work by these authors. So, to follow Mark's lead, here are two niche papers that are very close to my heart:

Kendon, Adam. (1978). ‘Differential perceptual and attentional frame in face-to-face interaction: two problems for investigation’, Semiotica, 24/3/4: 305–15.

Adam Kendon's contribution to the Gesture Studies literature spans four decades and many of his research papers are foundational texts across a range of topics. This is one of Kendon's least cited works. It's also one of the earliest experiments on gesture perception I've come across. Kendon used a film projector and played a speech by a speaker of Enga in Papua New Guinea to a group of English speakers, looking at what people attend to in gestures. It was the model we used for Gawne and Kelly (2014) (discussed below).

Hostetter, Autumn B., Martha W. Alibali, and Sheree M. Schrager. (2011). ‘If you don’t already know, I’m certainly not going to show you!: Motivation to communicate affects gesture production’. G. Stam and M. Ishino (eds), Integrating Gestures, pp. 61–74. John Benjamins.

I love this experiment so much: people gesture the same amount if they're doing an activity helping or competing with someone, but the size and usefulness of the gestures are different. If you're competing against someone your gestures are smaller and less informative. People, so sneaky. I absolutely made sure to get a reference to this into Gesture: A Slim Guide.

Mark suggested in his post that people share niche papers from their own research. Here are two of my favourite papers of mine that aren't cited that much, but made me very happy to have out in the world:

Gawne, Lauren, and Barbara F. Kelly. (2014). Revisiting “Significant Action” and gesture classification. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34/2: 216–33.

This was the first research project I ever run, and (imo) a nifty modern replication of Kendon (1978) discussed above. People generally agree with Gesture Studies researchers on the minimum definition of what a gesture is, but they ascribe communicative intent to a much wider range of actions. Also, I did this research back in 2007 as my honours thesis project, but it took us another seven years to get this through to publication.

Gawne, Lauren, Barbara F. Kelly, Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, and Tyler Heston. (2017). Putting practice into words: The state of data and methods transparency in grammatical descriptions. Language Documentation & Conservation, 11: 157–89.

This project surveyed 100 descriptive grammars: 50 published grammars and 50 PhD dissertations. There's lots of good work about how we should go about doing descriptive grammar work, but very little of this is actively discussed or described in the genre of published works. It's been almost a decade since we published this work. I'd like to think that people aren't citing it because they're just quietly improving the way they talk about methods and data in their descriptive grammar writing.

[communistkenobi]

i’d love to get your take on the physical geography/human geography “divide”. we spent a lot of time debating the merits of having both in my first year phd course and in my opinion as a physical geographer the opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration far outweigh any of the issues with housing physical and social scientists together

my familiarity with this debate primarily comes from the academic discourse around the concept of the “Anthropocene” (ie the period in Earth’s history where human beings have made a measurable, global impact on the environment, almost always spoken about in the context of climate change). The way I’ve seen this term used is to argue that the period of the Anthropocene is collapsing the physical/human geography divide, that even if we could separate these disciplines in the past, we can no longer partition the environmental from the social.

I’m partial to critical interventions in this discourse (which is how I will answer your question) - that the ‘human impact’ we’re talking about is actually a function of colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism, not some abstract universal ‘human impact’. Modern human beings have existed on Earth for nearly two hundred thousand years, and human-made climate change has only occurred in roughly the last two centuries - a microscopic timeframe when talking about Earth’s climate. People in the Global South, in imperialized countries, and indigenous and Black peoples in settler colonies are not the classes who produce industrial levels of carbon emissions or wreak industrial-scale environmental devastation - that is the ruling class & the imperial states of the world. Hoelle & Kawa (2021) argue in Placing the Anthropos in Anthropocene that we should call it the plantationocene or capitalocene, because human-made climate change is a function of specific historical and material processes, not some generalized, ahistorical "human impact." Likewise, "human impact" is an imprecise and colonial definition of human involvement with the environment, which dismisses Indigenous peoples' complex and highly sophisticated relationships with what are understood by the Western world to be "pristine environs" (arising from the doctrine of terra nullius, or empty land, which justified colonial expansion into the American continent because there was "no civilization there") such as the Amazon Rainforest, which should be understood as a human-made ecological system the same way we understand farmlands to be human-made (see Roosevelt's 2014 The Amazon and the Anthropocene: 13,000 Years of Human Influence in a Tropical Rainforest).

therefore I think it's productive to think of the divide between the physical and the human geographies as a colonial framework, or at least one that is deeply implicated in colonial thinking - it positions the environment as an ‘object’ terrain that ‘subjects’ are situated on top of, as opposed to understanding human beings as part of nature. This is part of the logic that relegates Indigenous people to the status of animals ("savages"), as "part of" nature, while human 'subjects', ie white bourgeois Europeans, are separated from nature (see Quijano's 2000 Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America). This type of thinking is attributed to climate change-denialism in fascist circles (see Acker's 2020 What Could Carbofascism Look Like?), whose denialism is premised on a settler colonial understanding of the environment as a resource to be dominated and extracted from - the environment has no agency in this framework, no ability to react to the violence of colonial extraction, it is a purely inert economic resource. Likewise, this psychical/human divide obfuscates the fact that historical processes like colonialism are also environmental processes. In North America, the genocides of indigenous peoples carried out by European settlers over the past five centuries have been so monumental that the resulting reduction in carbon dioxide output by human bodies is measurable in the geological record (see Hoelle & Kawa again). The environmental devastation of silver mining in South America led by Spanish colonizers, and the resulting misery inflicted on colonized peoples forced to conduct this mining (see Galeano's 1971 The Open Veins of Latin America) was foundational to the forming of the modern Spanish nation-state, who imported so much stolen silver into Europe that they crashed their own economy (see chapter 3 of Perry Anderson’s 1974 Lineages of the Absolutist State).

Likewise, efforts at environmental protections from Indigenous nations has resulted in unique advancements in the law, such as enshrining legal personhood on rivers, as was the case with the Whanganui River in Aotearoa (see Brierly et al's 2018 A geomorphic perspective on the rights of the river in Aotearoa New Zealand), or the forsaking of sovereign mining rights by the state in order to protect indigenous land claims for environmental protection, as was the case in Ecuador (see Gümplova's 2019 Yasuní ITT Initiative and the reinventing of sovereignty over natural resources). These are social, political, and legal efforts at environmental protection, done with an eye towards decolonization (or at the very least, decolonial policy regimes), and separating the environmental from the social in trying to understand this subject would be absurd.

And so the question of discipline specificity is obviously bound up in these debates, and the academic production of environmental scientists on the one hand and geographic social scientists on the other is part of the maintenance of that divide. Environmental protection policy requires specialised knowledge of the environments being protected, and that specialised knowledge likewise requires expertise in how state policy functions. And it has required decades and centuries of resistance and legal challenges for Indigenous people to be involved in these respective sites of knowledge production - all of this is bound up in debates about if we should keep the physical and human geographies separated. I think the example of medical doctors talking about “shit life syndrome” (ie the medical problems faced by people as a result of poverty and inequality) speaks to a consequence of the debates around disciplinary divides - most medical doctors are not social policy experts, it’s not their job to write legislation or policy programs, their job is to provide medical services to people, but they are nonetheless identifying in their supposedly separate discipline of medicine and human biology the harmful social outputs of capitalist societies, which is intense systemic poverty

[georgegraphys]

People need to understand that the way Max and George differently approaches a discourse is not because one is fake and the other is honest but it also correlates to their organization culture.

Both of these guys have each been in Mercedes/Red Bull for years. George has known Mercedes since 2014. Max probably knew Red Bull in the same year. It has been ± 10 years since then and it's clear how their habits and the way they handle media is influenced by the years they've spent in their respective teams.

Mercedes are not the type of team to publicly confront a discourse in front of the camera/media/public eyes. This behaviour is shown several times like when Lewis complained about his car being slow in AUT22(?) and Toto saying something along the lines of "ik the car is slow, just drive" and when George got mad after QAT23 and Toto and Marcus went on the radio directly, telling him to "keep your head down". This behaviour is also shown amongst previous Mercedes drivers or even their academy talents. This culture shows a significant difference from Red Bull's who is known to be fiery, blunt, honest, etc which some probably favours more in terms of "honesty".

But all in all? No cultures are wrong. Mercedes is Mercedes. Red Bull is Red Bull. No one is being a two faced bitch or the definition of honesty and truth. These cultures just show how these organizations are different and they handle things differently. You can't expect 10 organizations in F1 to run the same just because they're in one sport. These teams come from parent companies who had differing principles, values, and business. Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Aston Martin comes from Mercedes Benz, McLaren, Ferrari, and Aston Martin who handles cars. Red Bull comes from an energy drink company who invested in tons of different sports categories. Forget about analyzing their media behaviours, looking at their branding, logo, sponsors, and everything already explains how different they are from one another regardless of the categories you're fitting them into.

There are no rights and wrongs or "fake or honest" between organizational cultures and how these companies handle the public/media. The cultures are literally chosen by each company because it fits them. Of course those cultures have each of their own pros and cons but that's just their identity. You cannot fit one company's identities and how they work to another. There is a reason why they are unique in their own way.

And it's not even about being an honest angel or a lying snake. It's about how they deliver information to the public. They deliver the same thing, just with different processes and methods. If you can't identify that, you'll misinterpret their messages and it's on you.

[marzipanandminutiae]

Reblog game: 10 movies you gotta watch if you want to be a freak like me.

I was not tagged but @marypsue said anyone else could do it! and I want to!

This list is not about your favorite movies (though some could be). This list is not about movies that have had the most artistic influence on you (though some could be). This list is about those movies that helped give you your specific kind of freakiness, whether you watched them once or a hundred times, 20 years ago or 1 year ago. Good? Bad? Popular? Obscure? Could be any of these things. Freakiness can form in a person from any source. Definition of freakiness intentionally left vague.

Crimson Peak

Labyrinth

Mirror, Mirror

The Haunted Mansion (2003) (fast forward through the Eddie Murphy parts)

The Haunting (1963)

Hugo

What We Do In The Shadows (2014)

V For Vendetta

Titanic (for the History Emotions) (not for historical accuracy necessarily- steerage passengers were NOT locked down, and- [pulled offstage with a hook])

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

tagging @margridarnauds @gaslightgallows @svadilfari @vickythestrange @rosesutherlandwrites

[aalinaaaaaa]

For the truth/dare ask game:

🔪 ⇢ what's the weirdest topic you researched for a writing project?

🦋 ⇢ share something that has been on your heart and mind lately 

🦴 ⇢ is there a piece of media that inspires your writing? 

Hi, Lumi! Thanks for the ask <333

🔪 ⇢ what's the weirdest topic you researched for a writing project?

The one that's coming to mind as of writing is the length of the Bayeux Tapestry (it was because I wanted a frame of reference for the length of time it took to make something of that length. The question was in relation to the making of Affril's long-tailed coat 🤣)

🦋 ⇢ share something that has been on your heart and mind lately 

Two words but one character: crow lady! (also known as Claudia). She's appeared in so many of my recent flash fiction notes, she's made appearances/been the lead or main character for the past four of my flash fiction pieces in a row and I was thinking about it earlier today; she's probably one of the most influential people at least within my cast of characters. A lot of my plotlines trace back to her in some way, I've no clue why 🤷‍♀️🤣

🦴 ⇢ is there a piece of media that inspires your writing? 

There actually is, and that's Maleficent, the live-action one released in 2014. I love this movie, definitely one of my top favourites, but it's basically an accident that I took inspiration from it.

It's like certain concepts appeared in my brain during the idea creation process and it was not until later when I realised 'oh, some of this seems familiar, oh 👀😂'.

I remember really being endeared by Maleficent's arc with Aurora, I liked the concept of it and that may have influenced my plotline where Claudia got her hands on Charimone 👀😂

(The main inspiration for that came from a writing prompt I saw on tumblr)

[mysterycitrus]

would you please elaborate on your comment "renowned hack frank miller" ? i haven't read much from him yet but i like to listen to informed people tell me why [thing] sucks because it's funnier than dc wiki

when someone tells me their favourite comic writer is frank miller my response is the same as when someone tells me their favourite films are american psycho and fight club — i immediately prepare for an irish exit from the convo.

both (some of) miller’s work and those films are influential pieces of art with explicit political ideology, but while american psycho and fight club are (frequently) misinterpreted satire, miller is genuine to the point of hilarity.

if u consume batman as a character in any capacity u cannot escape miller’s influence — batman: year one is the pretty definitive starting point for most fans (and filmmakers, like matt reeves with the batman 2022), and miller’s visual style is a cornerstone for modern comics. the dark knight returns effectively changed how comics were viewed by readers, and is credited with kickstarting the modern age of comic books. i cannot emphasise that even if u haven’t read a miller book u have certainly encountered someone else inspired by his work.

with that said — miller writes like how a racist libertarian who believes his own hype would write about superheroes. greta, u must be wondering, that seems like an awfully specific descriptor to assign to someone. and normally u would be right!

the because im batman schtick that every sixteen year old nolan stan with a twitter account ran into the ground circa 2014 started because of miller, and his success in the 80s led to a number of ill advised projects fueled by his own hype. all star batman and robin was an uncritical interpretation of bruce that embodies all the worst misinterpretations of dc characters, including the justice league, that miller then tried to espouse was satire. unfortunately, he is not smart enough to punch up instead of down — the absurd hypersexualisation of women doesn’t become satire just because you’re laughing at readers in the script, frank.

this, in turn, led to one of the most virulently racist comics ever published — 2011’s islamophic nightmare fuel holy terror. he should not be taken seriously as a creative force, and he should not be the foundation of what comics should be. at least alan moore is marginally less obnoxious and fully admits that the killing joke was a bad idea.