#Business Essay Examples

[batfamfucker]

My sleep schedule is very fucked. Deadass passed out at like 8AM and woke up at 6PM. Passed out again and actually got up at 9PM. I cannot sleep now and have two lectures tomorrow and maybe work

[suzannahnatters]

So here's one of the coolest things that has happened to me as a Tolkien nut and an amateur medievalist. It's also impacted my view of the way Tolkien writes women. Here's Carl Stephenson in MEDIEVAL FEUDALISM, explaining the roots of the ceremony of knighthood: "In the second century after Christ the Roman historian Tacitus wrote an essay which he called Germania, and which has remained justly famous. He declares that the Germans, though divided into numerous tribes, constitute a single people characterised by common traits and a common mode of life. The typical German is a warrior. [...] Except when armed, they perform no business, either private or public. But it is not their custom that any one should assume arms without the formal approval of the tribe. Before the assembly the youth receives a shield and spear from his father, some other relative, or one of the chief men, and this gift corresponds to the toga virilis among the Romans--making him a citizen rather than a member of a household" (pp 2-3). Got it?

Remember how Tolkien was a medievalist who based his Rohirrim on Anglo-Saxon England, which came from those Germanic tribes Tacitus was talking about? Stephenson argues that the customs described by Tacitus continued into the early middle ages eventually giving rise to the medieval feudal system. One of these customs was the gift of arms, which transformed into the ceremony of knighthood: "Tacitus, it will be remembered, describes the ancient German custom by which a youth was presented with a shield and a spear to mark his attainment of man's estate. What seems to the be same ceremony reappears under the Carolingians. In 791, we are told, Charlemagne caused Prince Louis to be girded with a sword in celebration of his adolescence; and forty-seven years later Louis in turn decorated his fifteen-year-old son Charles "with the arms of manhood, i.e., a sword." Here, obviously, we may see the origin of the later adoubement, which long remained a formal investiture with arms, or with some one of them as a symbol. Thus the Bayeux Tapestry represents the knighting of Earl Harold by William of Normandy under the legend: Hic Willelmus dedit Haroldo arma (Here William gave arms to Harold). [...] Scores of other examples are to be found in the French chronicles and chansons de geste, which, despite much variation of detail, agree on the essentials. And whatever the derivation of the words, the English expression "dubbing to knighthood" must have been closely related to the French adoubement" (pp 47-48.)

In its simplest form, according to Stephenson, the ceremony of knighthood included "at most the presentation of a sword, a few words of admonition, and the accolade." OK. So what does this have to do with Tolkien and his women? AHAHAHAHA I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED. First of all, let's agree that Tolkien, a medievalist, undoubtedly was aware of all the above. Second, turn with me in your copy of The Lord of the Rings to chapter 6 of The Two Towers, "The King of the Golden Hall", when Theoden and his councillors agree that Eowyn should lead the people while the men are away at war. (This, of course, was something that medieval noblewomen regularly did: one small example is an 1178 letter from a Hospitaller knight serving in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem which records that before marching out to the battle of Montgisard, "We put the defence of the Tower of David and the whole city in the hands of our women".) But in The Lord of the Rings, there's a little ceremony.

"'Let her be as lord to the Eorlingas, while we are gone.' 'It shall be so,' said Theoden. 'Let the heralds announce to the folk that the Lady Eowyn will lead them!' Then the king sat upon a seat before his doors and Eowyn knelt before him and received from him a sword and a fair corselet."

I YELLED when I realised what I was reading right there. You see, the king doesn't just have the heralds announce that Eowyn is in charge. He gives her weapons.

Theoden makes Eowyn a knight of the Riddermark.

Not only that, but I think this is a huge deal for several reasons. That is, Tolkien knew what he was doing here.

From my reading in medieval history, I'm aware of women choosing to fight and bear arms, as well as becoming military leaders while the men are away at some war or as prisoners. What I haven't seen is women actually receiving knighthood. Anyone could fight as a knight if they could afford the (very pricy) horse and armour, and anyone could lead a nation as long as they were accepted by the leaders. But you just don't see women getting knighted like this.

Tolkien therefore chose to write a medieval-coded society, Rohan, where women arguably had greater equality with men than they did in actual medieval societies.

I think that should tell us something about who Tolkien was as a person and how he viewed women - perhaps he didn't write them with equal parity to men (there are undeniably more prominent male characters in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, at least, than female) but compared to the medieval societies that were his life's work, and arguably even compared to the society he lived in, he was remarkably egalitarian.

I think it should also tell us something about the craft of writing fantasy.

No, you don't have to include gut wrenching misogyny and violence against women in order to write "realistic" medieval-inspired fantasy.

Tolkien's fantasy worlds are DEEPLY informed by medieval history to an extent most laypeople will never fully appreciate. The attitudes, the language, the ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESS use of medieval military tactics...heck, even just the way that people travel long distances on foot...all of it is brilliantly medieval.

The fact that Theoden bestows arms on Eowyn is just one tiny detail that is deeply rooted in medieval history. Even though he's giving those arms to a woman in a fantasy land full of elves and hobbits and wizards, it's still a wonderfully historically accurate detail.

Of course, I've ranted before about how misogyny and sexism wasn't actually as bad in medieval times as a lot of people today think. But from the way SOME fantasy authors talk, you'd think that historical accuracy will disappear in a puff of smoke if every woman in the dragon-infested fantasy land isn't being traumatised on the regular.

Tolkien did better. Be like Tolkien.

[bean-pronounced-bawn]

Absolute nightmare combination of events for me

1) signed up for early slot for class presentations bc I wanted to get it out of the way

2) nobody signed up for the slots before mine despite me signing up for like the 7th slot, so I am presenting first with no idea what to expect

3) forgot I signed up for such an early time slot bc I didn't put it in my planner, so I have no plan for what I'm doing

4) presentation is on Thursday

5) professor gave super vague and open-ended instructions, which is nerve-wracking cause I do best when I have a clear set of expectations and a rubric I can follow

6) ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[reachartwork]

how to write fight scenes

many people have told me that Chum has good fight scenes. a small subset of those people have asked me on advice for how to write fight scenes. i am busy procrastinating, so i have distilled my general ethos on fight scenes into four important points. followed by a homework assignment.

Fight scenes take place on two axii - the physical and the intellectual. For the most interesting fight scenes, neither character should have a full inventory of the other's abilities, equipment, fighting style, etc. This gives you an opportunity to pull out surprises, but, more importantly, turns each fight into a jockeying of minds, as all characters involved have to puzzle out what's going on in real time. This is especially pertinent for settings with power systems. It feels more earned if the characters are trying to deduce the limitations and reach of the opponent's power rather than the opponent simply explaining it to them (like in Bleach. Don't do that). 1a. Have characters be incorrect in their assumptions sometimes, leading to them making mistakes that require them to correct their internal models of an opponent under extreme pressure. 1b. If you really have to have a character explain their powers to someone there should be a damn good reason for it. The best reason is "they are lying". The second best reason is "their power requires it for some reason".

Make sure your blows actually have weight. When characters are wailing at each other for paragraphs and paragraphs and nothing happens, it feels like watching rock 'em sock 'em robots. They beat each other up, and then the fight ends with a decisive blow. Not interesting! Each character has goals that will influence what their victory condition is, and each character has a physical body that takes damage over the course of a fight. If someone is punched in the gut and coughs up blood, that's an injury! It should have an impact on them not just for the fight but long term. Fights that go longer than "fist meets head, head meets floor" typically have a 'break-down' - each character getting sloppier and weaker as they bruise, batter, and break their opponent, until victory is achieved with the last person standing. this keeps things tense and interesting.

I like to actually plan out my fight scenes beat for beat and blow for blow, including a: the thought process of each character leading to that attempted action, b: what they are trying to do, and c: how it succeeds or fails. In fights with more than two people, I like to use graph paper (or an Excel spreadsheet with the rows turned into squares) to keep track of positions and facings over time.

Don't be afraid to give your characters limitations, because that means they can be discovered by the other character and preyed upon, which produces interesting ebbs and flows in the fight. A gunslinger is considerably less useful in a melee with their gun disarmed. A swordsman might not know how to box if their sword is destroyed. If they have powers, consider what they have to do to make them activate, if it exhausts them to use, how they can be turned off, if at all. Consider the practical applications. Example: In Chum, there are many individuals with pyrokinetic superpowers, and none of them have "think something on fire" superpowers. Small-time filler villain Aaron McKinley can ignite anything he's looking at, and suddenly the fight scenes begin constructing themselves, as Aaron's eyes and the direction of his gaze become an incredibly relevant factor.

if you have reached this far in this essay I am giving you homework. Go watch the hallway fight in Oldboy and then novelize it. Then, watch it again every week for the rest of your life, and you will become good at writing fight scenes.

as with all pieces of advice these are not hard and fast rules (except watching the oldboy hallway fight repeatedly) but general guidelines to be considered and then broken when it would produce an interesting outcome to do so.

okay have a good day. and go read chum.

[ellierenae]

SUPER UNIQUE writing ideas for hobbyists and professionals looking for fun, personal projects to get their inspo back

get a fictional pen pal (ask your other writer friends!) and spend time decorating envelopes, picking out a handwriting style, maybe buying a cheap perfume/cologne that smells like your character to really get to know them and feel their presence. if you have hand tremors or bad handwriting like me, you can choose a handwriting font for them and print their letters out!! more examples: save the dates, wedding invitations, birthday cards, party invites, etc.

use old calendars in character (there are many "expired" planners on sale around the end of the year, usually August) personally, i use them to record major life events like first band tours, trips abroad, holidays, birthdays... even trash pickup days and when they forget to roll out the bins!

sketch floor plans this can be on graph paper if you have the know-how when it comes to scaling down, but there are also tons of simple apps that allow you to both create the floor plan a builder would use and add furniture like an interior decorator. some even let you rotate them afterwards and see the furniture and walls burst to life in 3D! you can think of them as the sims but where everything is actually to scale

make an architectural model if you have some scrap cardboard, paper, and glue, you can easily bring the floor plan you just made to life (you'll need practice if you want to get really fancy with it of course! window panes and railings are the gnarliest part for me, haha)

make a playlist as your character maybe the most accessible one on this list, you can make the playlist your character listens to. sometimes this can be fun and surprising, like when my little guy Possum from Violence Without Plot is covered in tattoos and plays punk music on stage but listens to nothing but spa music to wind down between shows

write something your character can see this one is so weird to summarize but what i mean is like... a school essay for your teacher character to grade. cryptic street signs warning about danger by the lake. a memorial plaque beneath a statue. a character's online blog. a few of the cards in a grandmother's recipe box. a business card for a smooth-talking lawyer. things you can write that make everything feel so textured and real

these are all things i do on the daily, and it makes my life as a writer a thousand times more joyful and fulfilling. so have fun, be safe, and don't forget to unplug the hot glue when you're done <3

[lukecastellanshandholder]

I think that the one thing that I will always absolutely loathe the movies for (other than single handedly screwing up the whole plot of the story) is for making up that bullshit rule about Zeus declaring that no god can have any kind of contact with their children. That’s completely not true but now a huge chunk of people in the fandom believe that rule as canon( because most like to pick and chose what is canon and what is not, and sell head canons as being canon to the books ).

The only rules that are stated in the books relating to demigods and their parents is that 1). Gods cannot blatantly and outwardly help their demigod children during a basic quest (such as help them fight monsters or help them travel somewhere for the quest). 2). That as of the time right after WW2 the big 3 gods are not to sire any demigod children as part of their oath that they made on the River Styx (which Zeus and Poseidon definitely didn’t break ). Gods are still able to spend time with their demigod children and mortal lovers on times out side of quests. However, it’s seen as taboo mainly because the other gods use them having to much to do, and too many demigod children as an excuse to just not do anything for them. Not send them a birthday card, not a visit, and not even being claimed in most cases.

That’s giving the gods too much slack! People like to say "well, they’re gods. They’re trying their best." No they’re not! And this is what Luke’s character blatantly points out!

Hermes not even bothering to visit every once and a while? Hermes not trying to help in even any little way with Luke and May's situation? It’s a main reason why Luke becomes so angry at the gods and even thinks about saying yes to Kronos’ proposal.

And who is the example of what could’ve happened if Hermes would’ve done literally anything? Anything at all? Percy.

Percy didn’t like the gods and Poseidon very much in the beginning ( he doesn’t really like them much now but, you know) but Poseidon at least helps Percy in little ways that can fly under the radar of Zeus and the others. The Pearls to help Percy escape from the underworld? Tyson? Poseidon even crashes Percy’s birthday party ffs! Sure Poseidon isn’t there every time Percy scrapes his knee or fights a monster, but he still shows Percy that he somewhat cares about him.

All Hermes does is tell others how much he cares for Luke and "really truly loves him", but does nothing to prove to Luke that he truly cares. But it’s not just Hermes who does this, almost all of the gods do this! Why? Because they know that they can just say "oh, well I was busy and I tried my best" and others will just believe them and carry on. Or worse, they’ll take what the gods say to heart and demonize anyone who would try to oppose the gods so that it’s seen as a bad thing to hold the Gods accountable for the way they act.

And this is a clear example of the overarching theme that the gods are actually just an oppressive establishment that won’t ever really change unless it’s destroyed or overthrown.

In this essay I will…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[zvaigzdelasas]

The Communist Party’s main theoretical journal has laid out a new ideological framework for the financial system that emphasizes the primacy of China’s top leader and Marxist principles. [...]

The Communist Party issued a detailed ideological statement on Friday in Qiushi, the party’s main official theoretical journal, that made clear that it expected banks, pension funds, insurers and other financial organizations in China to follow Marxist principles [...]

The Qiushi paper, which was being closely studied by bankers and economists in China, could cut against efforts by Beijing to show that the economy is open to investment even as it places a heavier hand on business.

Barry Naughton, an economist at the University of California at San Diego who has long studied China’s transition to a market economy, said that the document signaled that the finance sector would be subject to ever-tighter oversight and forced to serve government policies more actively.

“The financial sector will not be expected to push for market-oriented reforms or even necessarily maximize profit,” he said. “As a program for the financial sector, it is ambitious, disappointing and somewhat ominous.”[...]

“Politics will for sure further dictate China’s finance, effectively moving China even closer to how it was before the reforms started in 1978,” said Chen Zhiwu, a finance professor at the University of Hong Kong.

Some of the policy targets set forth in the essay would not be unusual as regulatory goals in the West. For example, it calls for banks to emphasize financial services for the “real economy,” which the party has long interpreted to include ample financing for the country’s industrial base.

But it also calls for a strong role in finance for [...] Marxist ideology generally. That follows a pattern that emerged for other sectors during the national congress of China’s Communist Party a year ago, but has been less apparent in finance — until now. [...]

Moody’s, the credit rating agency, announced on Tuesday that it was lowering its credit outlook for the Chinese government to negative. It had previously assigned a stable outlook for the country’s credit rating, which remains at A1, near the top of the ratings scale. [...]

Qiushi is the main journal providing pronouncements on China’s current ideology, which is known as Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The statement on Friday said that Mr. Xi’s speech to the financial conference, “is a valuable ideological crystallization formed by our party’s unremitting exploration of the path of financial development with Chinese characteristics.” [...]

“Politics affects all important areas, and economic or financial issues are themselves political issues,” he said. Indeed, Communist Party control over finance comes up repeatedly in the Qiushi statement. “We must unswervingly adhere to the centralized and unified leadership of the party Central Committee over financial work, uphold and strengthen the party’s overall leadership over financial work,” it said.

5 Dec 23

[ask-whitepearl-and-steven]

Would you mind sharing your planning process of the comic? I'm starting to brainstorm a fiction idea and right now the ideas are very messy and I wanted to know if you could show how you plan what happens on a season and on an episode, maybe with an example of a season episode you already published, so I can learn how to organize myself?

I really, REALLY appreciate you coming to ask me for help with this. It's awesome to hear that you respect my writing enough to seek me out as an authority on such things, or at least enough to ask for advice.

But I'm gonna be real with you - what you're asking for is not a quick slapdash reply that I can whip up in my free time. What you're asking for is an hour long video essay (with examples) on the level of an educational creative writing online course.

And I--I don't know if I have it in me to do that right now. Not with everything else I'm trying to do. (Sorry.)

BUT.

What I can give you instead is a basic rundown, and maybe some recommendations for where to this stuff.

To be absolutely brief: For me, the best way to visualize how I plan would be to make a flowchart.

Keep in mind that....... I don't ever actually.......MAKE. A flowchart.

Mostly, I am just using this as a visual representation of how my ideas flow from and to each other in a coherent way. The reality is that this skill is something you have to develop until it becomes second nature.

As an example, let's take the episode(s) where I introduced Seaglass.

This little arc was planned in season 3, but really started to come into play in Season 4.

To make it happen, I started with the obvious main idea: SEAGLASS.

I then broke it down into multiple smaller ideas:

If you notice, the main plot of this doesn't even start when the Seaglass exposition does. Steven makes Seaglass back in season 3, but doesn't know about it. But these ideas are still important to acknowledge as being a part of the main plot.

I then fill in MORE space between these larger ideas.

This whole set of steps is just a logical progression of me playing 'how do we get there'. I make up plot points and say 'what happens to get from A to B?'

And keep in mind - this may seem kinda obvious. That's because... it should be! But that's how the planning happens.

Realistically, it's just a bunch of asking myself questions. The same exact questions I refuse to answer in asks.

"What happens next? What would happen if....?" "Why doesn't Steven know about ....?"

"How would Steven find Seaglass if he doesn't know she exists?"

Well she's small and green, kinda like Peridot. So he goes looking for Peridot and mistakes Seaglass for her.

BAM! You've got yourself a plot point. That's a plan, baybee!

And then just kinda rinse and repeat.

And eventually, you want to make sure that you have some sort of connection back to the main plot point. In this case, it's the realization that Steven CREATED LIFE.

Again, I want to stress - I don't actually........plan.... by writing this down.

I do this process in my head. Often, multiple times per chapter, writing and editing to make it make more and more sense. The important part is about asking yourself questions. The same questions your readers should be asking.

"Why is this character doing this?" "Why is this event happening NOW?" "How will A find out when they realize what B has done?" "What is the BEST time for B to find out...? What is the WORST time?"

All of this takes imagination. It isn't about organization. It's moreso about learning to tetris plot events into their most snug spaces. It's about thinking of events as a staircase, which eventually leads to a larger staircase of plot arcs.

And as a final note, I will say that someday, when I'm less busy, I may make a video about plot. But it will take more time and effort, and for now, please just watch videos by other creators! I'm sure they're just as good at it as I am.

[kerink]

idk man. personally i'm against human suffering and torturous, miserable deaths. i'm against the idea of spending 4 days locked in a tube without food or water, having to shit and piss yourself, unable to move or stand up, all the fighting and sobbing, a father cradling his son. i think it's terrifying and miserable and i hope they get found alive and get the help they need and this company is brought to justice.

i know the people involved are the elite and have likely caused human suffering on their quest for power. but the thing is... that's one of the things that separates the working class from the bougie... the working class care about the suffering of others.

i think this death would be poetic, and ironic. but i don't think it would change anything. the elite won't understand, they won't apply this experience of suffering to the suffering they cause their workers. they won't understand the irony of ecotourism causing a torturous death and parallel that to climate change. the won't see this as another example of elites trampling over mass graves for clout. they aren't going to take a global perspective.

these people will die miserable and tortured and afraid, the company may face legal and financial backlash, and that's all that's going to happen. and if they survive, the odds of any of these people using their power and fame to help others, to end their own questionable business practices and help others with mental health issues is such a small chance.

i hate watching people make jokes and laugh. these are human beings. you can see the irony in it, you can write essays about how this is another example of something rich white people have been doing for centuries. i understand and i think that's helpful and worthwhile!

but the number of posts i've seen cheering for these people to die is a lot. the number of memes and jokes i've seen is a lot. it's hard to look at sometimes.

[glitterock]

Call For Submissions

Hello! So i’ve decided i want to create a collaborative zine based on an essay I’m writing titled “Femme Dyke” on the lesbian experience and would love to collect other submissions written by and for the community! The title is based off of a piece I have written, but I don’t want this to be a femme-specific project. Ideally butch, femme, masc, dyke, androgynous, fluid, unlabelled, and any and all lesbian voices in between would be represented! I’ll be accepting around 10 (subject to change based on interest) pieces including essays, short stories, poems, songs, interviews, visual art, photography, and memoirs.

Rules for Submission:

* Must be a lesbian to submit. I love all my queer family, but this will be a collection of writing based on the lesbian experience

* Can be as short or long as you want as long as it’s 12 pages or under (size 12 font, regular 1.15 spaced). If you only want to write a few words, just write a few words! If you want all 12 pages, take all 12 pages!

*You may submit multiple pieces of work but only one submission will be chosen

* You can access this submission form until January 21st at 11:59 pm est (if you need up to a week extension please message me to work that out but try to stick to this deadline)

* Along with your written/visual submission, please include your full name/an alias you’d like to use, any socials/a website if you have one you’d like to include (not required) and a short biography (one paragraph long) about yourself, where you’re from, and any additional information you’d like to add written in the 3rd person. You may add a picture to your biography if you feel comfortable doing so!

* All submissions will be edited by me, but this most likely won’t go farther than spelling and punctuation changes. If I have any notes whatsoever i’ll run them by you and you’ll see and approve of the final copy of your piece before print/posting

* This goes without saying, but transphobia, racism, and hostility towards other queer identities will not be tolerated or printed

Examples for what to write about include but absolutely are not limited to:

* how your sexual identity as a lesbian intersects with other minority identities you may have

* your "Ring of Keys" moment

* your place in the lesbian community and how you relate to it

* coming out story and how that shaped you as a person/the relationships you have

* an interview with a lesbian you know

* being trans and a lesbian

* guide to eating pussy for beginners

* your first time falling in love/getting your heart broken

* a funny life story or anecdote that relates to lesbianism

* your identity (butch, femme, etc.) and what that means to you

* sexual experience/advice/ stories or how you relate to sex as a lesbian

* the colonization of gender and sexuality

* write a love letter! to lesbianism, your partner, a lover, a hook up, to butches, to femmes, to trans lesbians, to POC lesbians, to your friends, to yourself, to your vibrator!

* poetry, an original song, or a visual art piece about any of these topics or a topic related to lesbianism (note that visual art will be printed in black and white)

If your work is chosen, I will be in contact with you by January 28th to discuss further! Not every submission is guaranteed a spot.

Thank you so much and I look forward to reading all submissions!

submission form:

[theriverbeyond]

if you’re looking for stuff about necromancy as violation I always considered the cow thing to be a big example of that! Maybe it’s my inner 4-H kid, but it’s such an undignified and horrifying way to slaughter an animal IMO. It’s this drawn out, grotesque death that parallels both Mercymorn’s death and the 7ths blood cancer. It’s just such a disrespectful way to slaughter an animal, and I think you can read it as John’s first major betrayal of self, especially as it relates to his indigenous roots. Anyway. There’s just so much there.

you're RIGHT and i also think this is a case of how this is a feature, not a bug of necromancy.

death fuels necromancy, but it is specifically cruel, violent death that results in the most necromantic potential. gradual death/senescence en masse gives general ambient power (necromancy only works in areas where things have lived and died) but it is a mass of sudden violent death that flips a planet. Siphoning, in both the style of the Second and the Eighth house, lends necromantic power via an exquisitely painful process that can easily end in death. Necromancy itself eats away at the tissues, leaving all necromancers essentially physically disabled (Ianthe barely had the ability to hold her arms up to braid her own hair). Babies give off the largest burst of power when they die, and the Fourth House -- a planet that could very well be filled with only children -- specializes in suicide bombs.

and then of course you have the eugenics that is built into both the Seventh and the Eighth Houses -- and the Heptentary blood cancer specifically fascinates me because of how it is positioned as, essentially, a boon. If you get death-fuel by being in proximity to death, and you yourself are always dying, then you always have access to a very personal well of power. Until you die. "A dying woman is the perfect necromancer"..... An entire House that values short-lived necromantic potential over anything else and breeds their heirs to have this violation embedded into their blood.

and that isn't even really getting into the fact that this is just the violence that the House enacts upon it's own citizens. the majority of people on the business end of necromancy aren't House citizens at all, but non-House civilians whose death and dead bodies are hijacked to serve the Empire's purpose. but that's another essay

[valyrfia]

would like to hear more about how do think charles builds the parasocial relationship with fans like taylor

I have to say it took me a bit at surprise, I guess I didn't think that the twitter likes and memes were an attempt to build that, I was just innocently thinking he was just being real, but it's a interesting new perspective

One of my favourite things about Charles is that he's INCREDIBLY calculated, he isn't seen unless he wants to be, but he lets us know that he watches and sees everything ever posted about him online. He has 'secret' avenues through which he communicates with his most die-hard fans, like liking things on twitter than to an average F1 enjoyer would be innocuous, but to those in the know is like dynamite. Choice of emojis and/or instagram pictures are all deliberate and reflect discourse time after time after time. He let us know Leo's name, for example, through liking a tweet when really was it ANY of our business what that dog was called?

I can expand with a bigger essay and more examples if people want me to, but I've thought this for a while. It's not a bad thing at all, it's just a different way of cultivating a fanbase to traditional means, and I think it's a massive contributing factor to the online lecfosi being so active and so devoted.

[ripplestitchskein]

Some of you assholes are about to make me do an entire essay on writing structure, serialized fiction and like, fucking, the basic iterative creative process as it relates to HB.

Broad strokes though:

Pilot. 👏 Episodes 👏 Are 👏 Just 👏 Concepts 👏

Concepts are the INITIAL stage of the creative process. You may start with a character looking and behaving a certain way but by the time you get a final product they are completely fucking different. Or a story starts out in one direction in your early drafts but once you’ve really sat down and fleshed it out you realize you need to change it completely. This is why we have sketches, why we do drafts, why we do concept art. Every creative endeavor involves these steps. It’s rough -> refine -> refine -> refine -> finished product (or as finished as you can get with time/money/resource constraints).

That’s how every creative endeavor goes plus or minus some refinement steps. Things like money, time, and the number of people working on a project and tools available can change this math a bit but it’s ALWAYS the same basic principle. You start with a concept, you refine it over and over until it’s as close to done as you can make it. This can take a few days, this can take a few decades, but it still happens every time. Whether you SEE it or not.

Most of the time you don’t see the pilots of television shows. In major corporate productions all the behind the scenes growing pains happen before you lay your eyes on it. Examples we do have of true pilots often differ vastly from the end product and are usually released as special bonus material. Sometimes a show will call an episode the Pilot but there were versions of that pilot that got left on the cutting room floor. Before that there were character sketches, draft scripts, set designs, story breaking sessions etc that no one but the main creators see.

Independent productions, however, like Helluva Boss, like indie games, like web comics often don’t have the resources to go through that process without some transparency, they need to generate interest and capital. So they release concept art, pilots, Alpha versions and other pre-production materials to the public to get people to buy in and help them fund the project. That’s how they get it made.

The problem is some of you can’t seem to see past that rough draft.

Helluva Boss gave audiences the basic idea of the show with the Pilot. After they had secured interest and resources they could actually afford to flesh it out. And guess what? Like all creative cycles, shit changed. Characters changed. Designs changed. Stories changed. Then they released the first episodes, the final product, and those episodes said “Hey, this is what we landed on in terms of direction and this is the story we decided to tell. Here are the setups for what you’ll see going forward. Those set ups are:

“IMP is a business is hell specializing in the assasination of humans at the request of people already in Hell. There are four employees, Millie, Moxxie, Loona and the boss Blitzø. They accomplish this through the use of a grimoire that the title character (the boss) Blitzø is in possession of. He got this book from another character Stolas, they make a consensual sexual deal for use of the book. We have some indications of personality and characterization, financial struggles, but we’ll find out more in subsequent episodes.”

That’s episode 1. The first goddamn episode for the series.

Episode 2 is “Here is what we’ll actually be exploring through the course of this show beyond the broad premise you saw in episode 1: Blitzo’s relationship with Stolas. Stolas’s relationship with his family specifically his daughter and his failing marriage. Blitzo’s relationship with Millie and Moxxie. Blitzo’s relationship with his daughter. Blitzo’s issue with the Fizzarolli bot. Moxxie and Millie’s relationship dynamic.” All these things are setup and that is what the show is about. It’s what the show remains about, it’s what we’ve slowly been revealing and exploring.

So this whole “the show BECAME about Stolitz and Stolas is all sad owl now” is only an argument if all you saw and internalized was the rough draft. Because the actual FIRST. TWO. EPISODES. OF. THE. FINAL. PRODUCT. Very Explicitly layout what the show is going to be about and THATS WHAT ITS ABOUT. Blitzo’s relationships, including and very importantly his relationship with Stolas, Stolas’s relationships, and very importantly his relationship with Blitzø. Moxxie, Millie, Loona, Octavia and Stella are part of that. IMP is part of that but the central core of the show, as setup in the first two episodes are IMP, Blitzø, Stolas and the relationships that spiral off from those core things. And they have not changed, they have been expanded upon and revealed because….its a story, and that’s what happens in stories.

[genericpuff]

What are your thoughts on LO Krokos and LO Ampelus (Psyche) ?

These two male mythological figures, who had a gay relationship with gods, turned into female characters ! If they weren't included (especially since Dionysus is still a baby here), I wouldn't mind. But just using those names like that TWICE is strange, right ?

It's also weird how LO turns two virgin goddesses into lesbians, but don't even implement the canon gay relationships.

Can you find an explanation?

I mean I can't really offer an explanation because obviously I have no way of really seeing into Rachel's head, but it's definitely a choice that she's taken so many gods and characters from Greek myth and turned them into something else entirely, it feels very random and, in the case of the gods who were canonically gay/queer/etc. ... it's hard to ignore and give benefit of the doubt.

Another example is Persephone's therapist, Chiron, who's not just gender bent, but also put into the role of being a therapist ?? Which is like, okay, fine, but like... what is this accomplishing besides vaguely referencing Chiron's affiliation with medicine LOL

(this wound up turning into a bit of an essay so I'm including a jump to make it easier for scrollers lol)

To me, it just feels like it really cements Rachel as not being as well-read in Greek myth as she claims to be, because so much of the actual Greek myth in this comic is either taken directly from first results on Google (see: Zeus' definition of xenia which is taken straight from a Princeton study guide from 2004) and slapped haphazardly into the comic where it's convenient, OR it's just vaguely referenced at even if it's not being properly utilized (like she saw 'Chiron, wise centaur' and went "yeah cool she can be the therapist character!"). I have zero explanation or even assumption as to why she'd turn Crocus, a male lover of Hermes, into Krokos the flower nymph, or why she'd choose to use Ampelus as the name Psyche adopts after being turned into a nymph (which also didn't happen in the original myth). These are "creative choices" that come across as less creative and more just random attempts to make her seem smart.

Like, to a surface level reader or someone who's new to the series, it might seem neat and subversive (it definitely did to me back when I started reading and fell in love with it), but then you actually get further in and peel back the layers and go, "wait, she's just grabbing Greek names that are affiliated with real Greek heroes and gods and characters at random-" and it gets especially ick when it commits queer erasure in the process.

Don't get me wrong, I think having fun with character designs and swapping them or changing them up is perfectly fine, that's the fun of re-interpreting old stories, it's not that on its own that's the issue. It's just that these re-interpreted characters have literally NOTHING to do with the characters that she's basing them on. At least in Punderworld where Charon is a woman, she's still a psychopomp who ferries souls to the Underworld, her being gender-bent doesn't change much because her character and role in the story is still largely the same. Or like in Hadestown how the Underworld is more of a coalmine with Hades running it as a business, instead of the River Styx being a literal river it's a brick wall that protects the Underworld from outsiders ("and they call it freedom"). In both of these examples, they're taking the source material and making it fun and new, while still respecting the source material they're taking it from and keeping it on theme with that source material.

By comparison, Rachel just creates these character references and that's where it ends, they're just references and they don't do anything new or interesting with them, they're not even adjacent to what they're referencing. So we wind up with Chiron being a therapist, Ampelus being the nymph version of Psyche, the Fates looking and acting the exact same as each other even though they had different roles to play between Past, Present, and Future, and Aphrodite's children who... are literally made up from scratch, instead of pulling from the actual real children that Aphrodite had loads of in the original myths.

So many of Rachel's writing choices feel like attempts to be "subversive" when they're not, they're just random. Nothing about the things she changes from the original source material does anything to further explore that source material, it's just yoinking things at random to try and seem more Greek while also further separating her work from legitimate Greek culture. Even when you THINK something is about to be retold in an interesting way, it's very promptly either swept under the rug or veered off in a whole other direction that makes zero sense for what it set up (ex. Echo, what the fuck happened to Echo-)

It's very "ideas first, structure never" writing, she comes up with standalone ideas that sound good in isolation, until she actually tries to execute them and connect them and you realize they have no through line or reason to exist the way they do. It's giving real hard "first draft" vibes, so much of what Rachel chose to do should have been left on the cutting room floor (meanwhile the things that supposedly did get left on the cutting room floor SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE COMIC, ex. Hera's coat prophecy, Hades and Persephone having a date in the Underworld where she decides she might want to go into law, etc.)

Ugh. This got longer than I intended it to. It's just frustrating. I have inspiration to write that essay about queer erasure in LO now, at least. So yeah, hold on tight for that one LMAO

[elodieunderglass]

Referring to you "anxieties of the culture" horror tropes post, I just watched the 1990 adaptation of IT and this comes less than a month after watching both Kolchak movies & starting the TV show. What do you think it was about the late-70s/early-80s that led to "the killer is a monster that hibernates for a set number of years before returning to perform the killings again, as a grim echo of the past, and it's up to the heroes to stop it now before it rears its ugly head again"? There's gotta be some "pass-the-buck" crisis that PEAKED in that time period, something that was a long time coming before that and may or may not have continued since. I don't think it's climate change, that wasn't really at Critical Mass yet until the HFC hairspray crisis of the mid-80s. Your thoughts?

(In reference to this post: https://www.tumblr.com/elodieunderglass/729604545735458816)

Oh that is SO interesting! I also like the Horrors of the Past that Re-Emerge. You get them in fantasy too. To some extent they’re quite nice, because they displace responsibility, allowing the heroes to grapple with something distanced. necromantically resurrected Zombie Nazis will always be a more appealing enemy, for a broad market, than your present-day actual real life QAnon uncle. You can blow up an Ancient Horror as much as you like, can’t you? You don’t need to worry about the tricky present-day political circumstances that birthed the serial killer if it’s actually an ancient time-travelling monster. Monsters are often articulated and described and used because they are “safe” in this way: a displaced thing that can be used. Separate from us in species, appearance, home planet, history of origin, motives, spacetime - the farther they are from us and our shared background, the more justifiable it is to nuke them from orbit, to make a splashy movie.

HOWEVER. As I said in that post - “horror reflects social anxieties” is a SUPER well-described piece of media study and you can read proper writing about that anywhere. I encourage you to seek it out! They say it much better than I do.

I also said in that post that I, myself, don’t watch horror/movies/film. It isn’t due to contempt for the genre, or fear of the content - I just can’t get into it or get immersed, which defeats the point of an immersive genre meant to provoke response. (For example, despite being explicitly told that I would love Stranger Things Season 4 and that I was required to write fic about it for a friend, I gave out at the beginning of season 2; despite being really fond of Welcome to Night Vale at a formative time of my life, I dropped out before StrexCorp. And those are things I generally liked, wanted to consume, and knew I would enjoy! It’s a me problem, and I’m not bothered by it. I am TOO BUSY.)

That’s just to say that I could spitball some thoughts, but I’d be out of my depth.

But here’s an idea. A very small minority of people in the notes took offence to me having meta thoughts about horror when I don’t consume the genre - and worse, saying them out loud, while also openly admitting that I’m out of my depth and would prefer an expert to say it better. “YOU are a COWARD,” they say. “The audacity of commenting on a trend in a genre that you don’t even watch.” “You complain so much but don’t even watch these films” “imagine writing all this with such a bad attitude about horror.” etc.

I think those people have effectively volunteered to write you an essay. They clearly have the horror-consuming chops! Perhaps not the reading comprehension … or analysis skills… but they definitely watch a lot more horror media than I do, so why not give them a crack at it? (This is jokes, don’t bother them.)

Alternatively - there are a lot of clever and savvy people with good takes around here, so they’re welcome to spin out some answers on this post.