#and also because of the wider world building potential

[kedreeva]

Okay, I haven't wanted to talk much about the peafowl lately, been just kinda dealing with Stan's passing, but! I have news I don't want to keep quiet, so here we go with a little announcement.

I've been helping a friend of mine with a bunch of peafowl genetics work lately, as he's trying to prove out a really neat phenotype of speckled and white peafowl that showed up in his breeding stock, and he just spent tens of thousands of dollars importing two new morphs from Europe: European violet (aka, my dream morph) and Ultramarine (pretty and only otherwise being produced by TWO breeders in the WORLD). When Bill heard about Stan, he asked if I was going to go to a large farm auction that's a few hours from my house. I don't, normally, since it's a few hours from my house and the auctions usually make me kinda sad when it comes to peafowl (they stress out SO MUCH) even though it's cool to see how much they're going for at a wider audience auction.

Then he told me he would be going, and that if I wanted to come down the day before the auction, he'd bring me another male, to replace Stan. I had already made plans to hang onto Bismuth, at least for a few years, and to pick up babies from Indie x Arcana/Eclipse this november, including a male, so I didn't really need another male, and don't have the cash for one anyway. He said no, he meant one of the split EUV males from last year's first-USA breeding. For free. As a thank you for helping him.

To put this into perspective, importing the birds is a ~$10k affair, per bird. I had fully resigned myself to never even SEEING one of these birds in person, much less ever owning one. Even if someone else got them imported, they would remain thousands of dollars for the first few years, and quickly become mixed with other stuff, potentially even be lost by people breeding to purple. He went in on a group import with another breeder and they have both just started selling the full-color birds for over $2k apiece (alongside Ultramarine, which before their import was bred by TWO people in the WORLD, and babies from that are going for almost $7k each, but EUV is more widely spread). Splits (like the one I will be getting) are being let go for $750. This is also the color I have desperately wanted since I first saw them 8-10 years ago (though I believe they've been around slightly longer), but that I had resigned myself to never actually having.

To put it mildly, I'm probably going to burst into tears when I see Bill and this bird. It's going to be super embarrassing. And then I'm going to have to build more pens. And then I'm going to have to get as plain-blue, pure-indian blue hens as I can find, and become one of the most serious curators of plain pure EUV in the US, because I know the other two who have them currently will be outcrossing to other patterns/colors immediately and the people buying them will likely be doing the same, and everyone will be clamoring to make them into high Spaldings ASAP, or won't know not to cross them to purples and wreck the color.

Here's the sire cock, the one imported:

You will notice that this bird is purple in full sun, from the sunny side. That's the main difference between European violet and US purple- a US purple looks blue until you get the right angle on the sun vs the bird vs the camera, and you have to get the bird between you and the sun, so the purple is often in the shadow side- visible to the eye but not the camera. EUV is just purple. Even from the sunny side!!

And the Ultramarine, in case you were wondering about their color:

(pics reposted w/ permission from Bill)

The breeder is Spring Creek Peafowl, and in case anyone is secretly a peafowl breeder or knows other peafowl breeders with too much money that want in on a new color morph, he DOES have UM pairs and EUV hens (and more split males) for sale currently, for less than the only other person in the US that has them. They're still pricey, but cheaper. I WISH I had the extra to have my friend add on an EUV hen, but alas, I will have to wait to make my own in a few years. Even just the opportunity to do so is something I never expected to have!

[blueskittlesart]

did u not like totk?

i LOVED totk. i think it was well-written and did its job as a sequel to botw very well. HOWEVER. i do think it suffered slightly from the commercial success of botw. as i mentioned in my last post, nintendo does this. thing. when one of their games gets popular where every game after it has to be Exactly The Same so they can make all the money in the world via comparison marketing. (and this is a problem with the wider game industry in general but also a very observable pattern in loz specifically.) I know it's been a pretty long time since botw came out, but before (and immediately following) its release there was some pushback from longtime fans who worried that the open-world and lack of traditional dungeons meant that the game had strayed too far from the classic formula that makes a game a "zelda game." this is to say, botw was EXPERIMENTAL. and the devs had no idea if what they were doing was going to be successful or not. the open-world of botw wasn't a gimmick, and it wasn't the devs jumping on the open-world bandwagon. it was what CREATED that bandwagon. the open-world was a deliberate choice made specifically for botw because it reinforced the story that botw was designed to tell. the game is about exploring a desolate world, about making connections, and rebuilding both the broken kingdom and the player character's shattered sense of self by traveling and learning and building relationships. a large open-world map with only minor quest guidelines and lots of collectibles and side quests lends itself perfectly to this specific story, which is specifically about exploration and rebirth.

the problem is, botw was. almost TOO good. it was so good that every other game company on the planet started scrambling to build giant open-world maps into their next release, regardless of how much sense that actually made narratively. and because of that, when it came time to release a sequel to botw, the devs had a lot to think about. they had HUGE shoes to fill in terms of fan reception, but they were ALSO being asked to follow up one of the best-performing games of all time, commercially. totk needed to SELL as well as botw. And, likely because nintendo was worried about that potential commercial value, totk needed to keep people comfortable. I don't know for certain, but I definitely get the feeling playing totk that the devs were specifically told not to stray too far from what made botw marketable and successful--that being the open world and the versatility of gameplay. so in order to follow that up, they made... 2 more huge open maps, and new gimmick gameplay which was explicitly super-versatile.

do i think that the extra maps and ultrahand were BAD choices? no. however, i don't think they necessarily ADDED anything to the game as a narrative whole. one of my favorite things about botw was how everything seemed to be designed AROUND the narrative, with gameplay elements slotting neatly into the story thematically. totk just. didn't really have that, imo. there wasn't a huge narrative benefit to the gigantic, completely unpopulated depths and sky maps. ultrahand was cool, but within the context of the story it meant basically nothing. in some ways, i almost think totk could have benefitted from a much more linear approach to its storytelling, a la skyward sword, because there are a lot of story beats that have to be found in chronological order in order to have the right emotional impact, but because of the nonlinear open-world it kind of became a struggle to hit all the important story points in the right order. an easy example of this is the dragon's tears in comparison to the memories--the dragon tears have a very specific set order in which they happen, and finding them out of order can make the story you're seeing in them feel confusing and disjointed. the order in which they should be found is technically displayed on the temple wall, but most players aren't going to pick up on that or follow it--more likely, they're just going to explore the geoglyphs as they come across them organically, and therefore will likely witness the story in a completely disjointed way. compare this to the botw memories, which ALSO technically have a set order--the order in which they're displayed on the sheikah slate. however, because they're largely just small moments in time, and not one continuous story, finding them out of order has a lot less of an impact on how you as the player experience the narrative, and it's not hugely detrimental to your experience of the story if you find them naturally as you explore rather than explicitly seeking them out in order. If TOTK had been allowed to deviate from the botw formula a bit, i think we may have ended up with a more cohesive game in terms of narrative beats like that. as it is, i just think the game is torn slightly between wanting to be its own new game with new gameplay and needing to be botw, if that makes sense.

[angermango]

"I'm not cooking or anything, this is just a silly idea- (looks down at canvas) ffffuuuu--"

...

so, first I only wanted to draw Professor Layton with a Reiterpallasch from Bloodborne because haha funny hat man with gun-sword, but then i ended up drafting concept art for "Laytonborne", apparently.

"Puzzles all over the shop... You'll be stuck on one of them, sooner or later."

extra artist commentary:

Layton

yes, this really did just start with me wanting to give Layton a Reiterpallasch because he's a canonical fencer and Bloodborne trick weapons absolutely slap. The Reiterpallasch is literally a rapier with a pistol attached that can mechanically switch to prime either the blade first or the gun first so you can stab and shoot someone at the same time.

Giving Hershel the Bloodborne makeover was kind of funny because he wears such a simple look in canon it was hard striking the right balance between his recognisable look and BB aestheic since Bloodborne loves embellishment especially via lots of belts/buckles and those weird shoulder-cape things. I tried to keep it simple enough though because as much as i think he could pull off a hunter ensemble i don't want to have to keep track of all the funky bits. the Top Hat Stays, of course.

Aurora

Aurora is eerily good a fit in a Soulsborne-esque setting considering she fits the criteria for a "Soulsborne maiden" classic archetype sort of character: After all she's a mysterious pale-haired young woman with mystical origins/powers and a foreign-sounding accent and may or may not have some connection to the wider lore and powers that be of the setting. hell even her whole thing being a golem works in a way as even Bloodborne has artificial humans existing as a concept.

i got a little lazy with changing up her dress for both time and lack of inspiration. I thought maybe i'd really do her up but then I chickened out that her costume wouldn't be recognisable any more so just slapped a belt and some patterns on the shawl bit and called it a night :P (if i'd been braver/more motivated she'd probably look good in an approximation of the White Church set, something like that)

and yeah so as the sketches off to the side are like, no real clue how/why it might be triggered but imagine her having the potential to be an optional boss or something (and she'd whoop your ass)

Flora

idk tho Flora also seems like she could be a good contender for the "Soulsborne maiden" position too in a way, or even if not her whole character and story fits into the world quite well. especially with Bloodborne having the Plain Doll who is a sentient doll made in the image of someone her creator loved/was obsessed with and Flora living in a village of human-like robots which started after her father tried to build a replacement for her dead mother.

Her dress is a combination of all her canon costumes across the games. The fur-trim shoulder cape is from one official art of her, the short shawl and white sleeves and bit around her waist is based on her first dress, and the rest of the dress design is based on her second and third game appearance.

The 'Doll Flora' concept there at the end is just some idea of a false/clone Flora running around as well. She's got some little differences including elements of other parts of Flora's designs over the years that aren't on OG Flora, such as the sash and shoes.

Anton

Anton fits in scarily well to the Bloodborne-y setting, perhaps not too surprisingly given the whole 'vampire' thingy. I sort of envision Folsense and Herzen Castle being a bit like the Castle Cainhurst area of Bloodborne which leans more into the classic gothic horror of a remote and looming haunted castle occupied by a sinister enigmatic character.

And yes, that is a reference to the infamous "LAYTOOON" scream from his canon 'boss fight' in the second game - imagine the whole steaming up and screaming thing being like his boss phase transition animation.

The whole 'withers to an old man/husk' concept seems so very Soulsborne-y it really just fits yknow. like if you defeat him he shrivels up/ages to dust or whatever. RIP gassed-up grandpa.

I partly rizzed up his suit using inspiration of the Cainhurst Knight set because like. come on. it's too good to pass up the chance to pretty up with and looks a lot like his canon suit in parts.

Did I trace the foyer background art for Herzen Castle for the mockup just for laffs, only to realise partway that 1) Layton and Anton actually fought in the ballroom, and 2) the ballroom would actually make a much better boss arena setting because it's wide open and the arch from the front room leading into the ballroom could totally be the 'boss fog door' part better than the front room?

...so yeah I then drew the ballroom background without tracing this time like a true madman and had a hell of a time with perspective but the plus side is we also get the sword collection from the game there as a cameo because in Laytonborne the good professor brought his own already.

The Masked Gentleman / Randall

Had a bit of a time deciding how to Bloodborne-ify this guy because his suit in canon is actually really. really boring. it's just a white suit like cmon. so to give it that Bloodborne makeover I fell back on the classic shoulder-cape thing that almost all Bloodborne characters have, added some patterns and accessories based on the Mask of Chaos' patterns and the Decorative Old Hunter's set from the Old Hunters DLC (in the leg brace, forearm guard and the hints of gold chains around the upper arms).

He also gets a Threaded Cane, another trick weapon of Bloodborne fame which is as it suggests: A cane weapon that works a bit like a baton/sword combo but in its alternate form it's a whip covered in serrated metal blades which form the cane itself when locked together.

It seems very appropriate for Randall to be like a boss who starts out as the Masked Gentleman and then at half-or-less health you break his mask, reveal Randall and then wings burst out of his back as he enters his second phase rage mode. This concept part felt more DSouls-y than Bloodborne-y to me i think since Bloodborne is less fantastical and leans more into the body horror/monstrous kind of boss transitions? But at the same time it was too good an opportunity to pass on at least sketching out, plus get you some sick fallen angel imagery out of it.

Also the hanging arm pose miiight be a bit inspired by Artorias of the Abyss. just a bit.

Descole

i recall seeing a post somewhere once with this very low-res rare art of Descole sitting in a throne from somewhere i have no idea what it was for. and I remember it kinda reminded me of Lady Maria's promotional art for the Old Hunters DLC so that's why the last picture of Descole exists.

mf already dresses so extra i legit could think of nothing to add to make him more Bloodborne-y unlike the others. I also used his canon sword's design from the games with a custom sheath because again couldn't really think of anything more to do to make him fit more when he's already got a cool signature weapon to show off.

[wolfiwonderer]

Season 2 shows us Sahed's life is a series of cages and betrayals growing more constraining each time. That he hasn't given up is impressive (but giving up would not be in his character). Anger and magic is basically all he has to hold on to, and I think we have yet to see if his anger at Tonny was misplaced.

Cage 1: the concentration camp that he grew up in.

I'm not sure exactly how long ago this was, but I'm guessing 100 years, which means Ah'kon have not had freedom for over a century. And what's the first thing we see he's doing (other than being a cocky brat <3)? Building a flying machine to get out and see the wider world. He's enticed to leave peacefully because it comes with leaving. And so first betrayal of trust in someone offering an escape.

Cage 2: the research center. I think we'll learn a lot more about this, but clearly he started thinking about it positively, hence the happy picture. My theory is that the giant wave was made by Sahed, and when he implies he's killed before, that is the event he's referring to. We know that Steinheimer died young, but Sahed doesn't seem quite broken up about the guy. Since he says he was haunted, it just doesn't feel like that would be the haunt.

Cage 3: the circus

I think it's clear that Sahed was an addition after the circus started. For one, I can't see Sahed really confining himself the castle, but also it would be hard for him to live as a fugitive. So he manages to escape, but needs refuge and meets Tonny. Tonny promises to give him freedom from Kalgratt and that he'll support Sahed's cause. But Tonny continuously makes ill-fated promises that even a casual understanding of their situation is morally wrong. I want to write something about why I think Tonny is not good, even if he does not realize it. But suffice to say, Sahed didn't get what he thought he would get from the bargain.

Adding a cut because it rapidly passes into fast pass zone.

Cage 4: the circus but worse

Now he's alone in a cage. And when he gets out, it's not really freedom from the cage, it's just walking room. Because while in theory Tonny is going to help now, the circus is turned against him. They're morals have long seemed suspect - very selfish and disconnected with how their choices might affect people outside the circus. Sahed and Julia are really the only ones still concerned with anything outside the circus.

The third betrayal is Julia, but this is different, because he also let her down, and because he knew he was in a position of power over her. This hearkens back to when he was the leader of his group of friends and led them into the research center. He doesn't know, I think, about her 1 year limit, so he probably thinks he had even more influence on her decisions than he did. Honestly, I think he gets too much blame from others on her decision. She wanted validation that Tonny deserved it because she wants to live. But Sahed delivered when he should have realized the consequences. He feigned confidence in the plan that he didn't have. Her turning on him hurts but not in a way he can get angry at her about, although I think he has a right to be mad if she really doesn't support his takedown of the research center.

Julia can give up in a way that Sahed can't. The only person she has to save is herself, whereas he feels responsible for the Ah'kon's treatment (even if he isn't). Still, Julia and Sahed share a sense of righteousness, and I don't see meek Julia lasting.

I am totally here for the shipping too, but I really love Sahed's character. I love how we start with Sahed as a potential villain (okay we knew he wasn't but Julia def thought he was) and brat, but as we learn more about him, his motivation becomes clear as an activist -- he's still a brat (affectionate).

[bibibbon]

It's especially disappointing that All Might and Hawks rarely interact, despite having contrasting views of their ideal hero world (one wanting heroes to be self-sacrificing and hard-working, the other wanting heroes to have endless free time).

The only time they interact is to indirectly talk about Endeavor (because of course). However, it's not to discuss their connections to and disapproval of him, instead it's to lament about how Endeavor of all person was harmed by the hero society.

Hero society needs to change, and Hawks will help. Only regarding Endeavor. Only for Endeavor.

All might and hawks don't really have proper interactions where we see both of their beliefs clash. Yes, we see all might and hawks interact outside of endeavor but the interactions where we do see them talk about the state of hero society (specifically seen in the latest manga chapters 427 and above) are incredibly vague and shallow.

It's a shame that the only proper discussion these two seem to have about heroics is about the hero popularity polls or billboards which hawks change about them (to me) is a horrible idea since I believe that they should of just been taken down in general instead of being expanded since they done more harm than good.

(That aside why does all might looks so gloomy?he looks weird)

Yes enji is a character that ties these two closely but even that isn't explored to its fullest potential. Hawks never seems to react negatively to finding out that his hero who saves him from his own abuser is also an abuser and a terrible human being in many ways and all might never seems to react to enji also being a terrible being and him being a terrible being all because he wanted to surpass all might. The lack of build up and reaction is so irritating

Beyond the enji connection for all might and hawks you also have their personal lives and thinking. The current hero system is something that all might built and the hpsc (even if by accident) is something that all might influenced the creation of and contributed to building. All might even if he never meant for it is the creator of the current status quo and all of its problems and positives tie back to him.

Now this is interesting because you can explore the guilt all might can have with this issue and how hawks someone who has suffered and benefited from the status quo reacts and Interacts with all might. We already see that all might and hawks have clashing views specifically when it comes to heroics with all might putting his entire life into heroics and using all of his strength to make sure he creates a perfect world where people can rely on someone (ultimately creating the massive bystander effect in mha) this is all contrasted to hawk's own beliefs where he wants heroes to have a ton of free time and we can see that this belief stems from hawk's own experiences of working and it could be argued that this maybe a wider criticism that horikoshi holds towards the toxic work culture there is especially the one in Japan.

However, both of these ideologies are flawed by themselves and would have a lot of negative consequences if implemented. This is why it would be even more interesting to have hawks and all might come to a conclusion where yes heroes need to work properly but they also need to have proper breaks and support while also allowing other members of society to play their role.

The more interesting thing is that you can have all might and hawks both come to this conclusion in the vigilante arc with hawks learning how valuable other members (who aren't heroes) to society which is something he can learn with tokoyami checking up on him and contacting him. All the while all might can learn that heroes cannot overexert themselves or they will snap and may even die in battle which is something he can learn from seeing izuku his successor almost go too far and get himself killed from pure exhaustion and reckless behaviour.

[sunshinesmebdy]

Pluto in Aquarius: Brace for a Business Revolution (and How to Ride the Wave)

The Aquarian Revolution

Get ready, entrepreneurs and financiers, because a seismic shift is coming. Pluto, the planet of transformation and upheaval, has just entered the progressive sign of Aquarius, marking the beginning of a 20-year period that will reshape the very fabric of business and finance. Buckle up, for this is not just a ripple – it's a tsunami of change. Imagine a future where collaboration trumps competition, sustainability dictates success, and technology liberates rather than isolates. Aquarius, the sign of innovation and humanitarianism, envisions just that. Expect to see:

Rise of social impact businesses

Profits won't be the sole motive anymore. Companies driven by ethical practices, environmental consciousness, and social good will gain traction. Aquarius is intrinsically linked to collective well-being and social justice. Under its influence, individuals will value purpose-driven ventures that address crucial societal issues. Pluto urges us to connect with our deeper selves and find meaning beyond material gains. This motivates individuals to pursue ventures that resonate with their personal values and make a difference in the world.

Examples of Social Impact Businesses

Sustainable energy companies: Focused on creating renewable energy solutions while empowering local communities.

Fair-trade businesses: Ensuring ethical practices and fair wages for producers, often in developing countries.

Social impact ventures: Addressing issues like poverty, education, and healthcare through innovative, community-driven approaches.

B corporations: Certified businesses that meet rigorous social and environmental standards, balancing profit with purpose.

Navigating the Pluto in Aquarius Landscape

Align your business with social impact: Analyze your core values and find ways to integrate them into your business model.

Invest in sustainable practices: Prioritize environmental and social responsibility throughout your operations.

Empower your employees: Foster a collaborative environment where everyone feels valued and contributes to the social impact mission.

Build strong community partnerships: Collaborate with organizations and communities that share your goals for positive change.

Embrace innovation and technology: Utilize technology to scale your impact and reach a wider audience.

Pluto in Aquarius presents a thrilling opportunity to redefine the purpose of business, moving beyond shareholder value and towards societal well-being. By aligning with the Aquarian spirit of innovation and collective action, social impact businesses can thrive in this transformative era, leaving a lasting legacy of positive change in the world.

Tech-driven disruption

AI, automation, and blockchain will revolutionize industries, from finance to healthcare. Be ready to adapt or risk getting left behind. Expect a focus on developing Artificial Intelligence with ethical considerations and a humanitarian heart, tackling issues like healthcare, climate change, and poverty alleviation. Immersive technologies will blur the lines between the physical and digital realms, transforming education, communication, and entertainment. Automation will reshape the job market, but also create opportunities for new, human-centered roles focused on creativity, innovation, and social impact.

Examples of Tech-Driven Disruption:

Decentralized social media platforms: User-owned networks fueled by blockchain technology, prioritizing privacy and community over corporate profits.

AI-powered healthcare solutions: Personalized medicine, virtual assistants for diagnostics, and AI-driven drug discovery.

VR/AR for education and training: Immersive learning experiences that transport students to different corners of the world or historical periods.

Automation with a human touch: Collaborative robots assisting in tasks while freeing up human potential for creative and leadership roles.

Navigating the Technological Tsunami:

Stay informed and adaptable: Embrace lifelong learning and upskilling to stay relevant in the evolving tech landscape.

Support ethical and sustainable tech: Choose tech products and services aligned with your values and prioritize privacy and social responsibility.

Focus on your human advantage: Cultivate creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence to thrive in a world increasingly reliant on technology.

Advocate for responsible AI development: Join the conversation about ethical AI guidelines and ensure technology serves humanity's best interests.

Connect with your community: Collaborate with others to harness technology for positive change and address the potential challenges that come with rapid technological advancements.

Pluto in Aquarius represents a critical juncture in our relationship with technology. By embracing its disruptive potential and focusing on ethical development and collective benefit, we can unlock a future where technology empowers humanity and creates a more equitable and sustainable world. Remember, the choice is ours – will we be swept away by the technological tsunami or ride its wave towards a brighter future?

Decentralization and democratization

Power structures will shift, with employees demanding more autonomy and consumers seeking ownership through blockchain-based solutions. Traditional institutions, corporations, and even governments will face challenges as power shifts towards distributed networks and grassroots movements. Individuals will demand active involvement in decision-making processes, leading to increased transparency and accountability in all spheres. Property and resources will be seen as shared assets, managed sustainably and equitably within communities. This transition won't be without its bumps. We'll need to adapt existing legal frameworks, address digital divides, and foster collaboration to ensure everyone benefits from decentralization.

Examples of Decentralization and Democratization

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs): Self-governing online communities managing shared resources and projects through blockchain technology.

Community-owned renewable energy initiatives: Local cooperatives generating and distributing clean energy, empowering communities and reducing reliance on centralized grids.

Participatory budgeting platforms: Citizens directly allocate local government funds, ensuring public resources are used in line with community needs.

Decentralized finance (DeFi): Peer-to-peer lending and borrowing platforms, bypassing traditional banks and offering greater financial autonomy for individuals.

Harnessing the Power of the Tide:

Embrace collaborative models: Participate in co-ops, community projects, and initiatives that empower collective ownership and decision-making.

Support ethical technology: Advocate for blockchain platforms and applications that prioritize user privacy, security, and equitable access.

Develop your tech skills: Learn about blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and other decentralized technologies to navigate the future landscape.

Engage in your community: Participate in local decision-making processes, champion sustainable solutions, and build solidarity with others.

Stay informed and adaptable: Embrace lifelong learning and critical thinking to navigate the evolving social and economic landscape.

Pluto in Aquarius presents a unique opportunity to reimagine power structures, ownership models, and how we interact with each other. By embracing decentralization and democratization, we can create a future where individuals and communities thrive, fostering a more equitable and sustainable world for all. Remember, the power lies within our collective hands – let's use it wisely to shape a brighter future built on shared ownership, collaboration, and empowered communities.

Focus on collective prosperity

Universal basic income, resource sharing, and collaborative economic models may gain momentum. Aquarius prioritizes the good of the collective, advocating for equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Expect a rise in social safety nets, universal basic income initiatives, and policies aimed at closing the wealth gap. Environmental health is intrinsically linked to collective prosperity. We'll see a focus on sustainable practices, green economies, and resource sharing to ensure a thriving planet for generations to come. Communities will come together to address social challenges like poverty, homelessness, and healthcare disparities, recognizing that individual success is interwoven with collective well-being. Collaborative consumption, resource sharing, and community-owned assets will gain traction, challenging traditional notions of ownership and fostering a sense of shared abundance.

Examples of Collective Prosperity in Action

Community-owned renewable energy projects: Sharing the benefits of clean energy production within communities, democratizing access and fostering environmental sustainability.

Cooperatives and worker-owned businesses: Sharing profits and decision-making within companies, leading to greater employee satisfaction and productivity.

Universal basic income initiatives: Providing individuals with a basic safety net, enabling them to pursue their passions and contribute to society in meaningful ways.

Resource sharing platforms: Platforms like carsharing or tool libraries minimizing individual ownership and maximizing resource utilization, fostering a sense of interconnectedness.

Navigating the Shift

Support social impact businesses: Choose businesses that prioritize ethical practices, environmental sustainability, and positive social impact.

Contribute to your community: Volunteer your time, skills, and resources to address local challenges and empower others.

Embrace collaboration: Seek opportunities to work together with others to create solutions for shared problems.

Redefine your own path to prosperity: Focus on activities that bring you personal fulfillment and contribute to the collective good.

Advocate for systemic change: Support policies and initiatives that promote social justice, environmental protection, and equitable distribution of resources.

Pluto in Aquarius offers a unique opportunity to reshape our definition of prosperity and build a future where everyone thrives. By embracing collective well-being, collaboration, and sustainable practices, we can create a world where abundance flows freely, enriching not just individuals, but the entire fabric of society. Remember, true prosperity lies not in what we hoard, but in what we share, and by working together, we can cultivate a future where everyone has the opportunity to flourish.

[coraniaid]

You said a few days ago that you would have liked if season 7 went more in the direction of Help rather than the direction of the First. I know you're not a big fan of the First but I was wondering what you meant by that specifically, and what kind of direction you might have preferred season 7 go in overall?

I don’t have any good reason to think it actually happened, but I always get the impression from watching or thinking about Season 7 that the early plans for the season changed pretty significantly at some point after most of the first few episodes had already been written.  (Perhaps when they decided that it would also be the last season?  I’ve heard conflicting accounts of when that decision was made.)

If you go back and look at the then-contemporary discussions of the show, the whole season was initially marketed as something of a ‘year zero’: a return to the show’s high school era roots, to something much more upbeat than Season 6, to the original Scooby Gang as the focus of the show.  

And just to be clear, I rather like Season 6 – it doesn’t always work, and I think some of the subplots are pretty dreadfully executed, and sometimes I respect the episodes more than I enjoy watching them – but it inarguably has a clear vision for the story it’s trying to tell, one that builds on and recontextualizes what came before it.  But for the payoff for that season to land, we needed Season 7 to be different.  To be less cynical, more hopeful.  It needed to show us that Buffy was right to promise Dawn in Grave that things were going to get better.  

And that sort of reset is what we got … for about half a dozen episodes.  Then, of course, it goes rather horribly wrong.

I like Help in particular because it is, for me, the closest the show ever gets to delivering on that promise of a return to the high school era.  It’s not quite a regression or a soft reboot: Buffy is still an adult with a job, even if she’s suddenly unexpectedly back in high school.  Her more mundane responsibilities haven’t suddenly gone away. But now the job she has isn’t something she hates but has to do – it’s something that she actually has a calling for, almost literally, something that harks back to her getting the Class Protector award back in Season 3.   In Help Buffy’s inhabiting the same world she did in the first three seasons, she’s still trying to save people, but this time with a new, more experienced perspective. 

The episode feels very aware of the show’s history, too.  There are nods to Lie To Me (a teenager Buffy knows is going to die because of illness, not anything supernatural Buffy can stop) and Reptile Boy (the cult trying to sacrifice a teenage girl to a demon for material riches) and Beauty and the Beasts (with Buffy herself taking on the role of Mr Platt, worried that Mike is going to turn out to be another Pete), and of course the whole episode is a callback to Prophecy Girl.  Because Cassie – probably the show’s last great one-episode character (and yes, the actor comes back later but the person doesn’t) – isn’t just somebody Buffy is trying to save, she is Buffy: a Season 1 Buffy who struggles to make friends and has a supernatural gift she doesn’t like to talk about and knows she’s going to die heartbreakingly young.  I don’t think it’s merely chance that Cassie’s big speech to Buffy about her destiny (“You think I want this?  You think I don’t care?”) echoes Buffy’s own words to her mother in Becoming either (“You think I choose to be like this?”).

Plus, while the episode ties into the wider story arc – with Spike in the basement and hints that Principal Wood might be up to something and our first appearance of future Potential Amanda – the whole thing still tells a coherent, self-contained story.  It stands on its own right; it makes sense on its own terms.  it’s not just another installment in the long running saga of General Buffy and the friends she never talks to who later kick her out of the house she owns.

And I think there was a lot more ground there to explore, in the same vein as Help.  At least a full season’s worth.  There was so much more the show could have tried to do in terms of going back and revisiting some of the classic moments of the first three seasons from a more mature and more grown-up perspective, instead of summarily kicking Buffy out of her new job and then blowing the school up (again).  If this season is about the future – about new Slayers being called, one way or another – then what does that mean?  How else are Buffy and Willow and Xander engaged in the challenge of trying to pass on what they’ve learned about life on the Hellmouth to a new generation?  

At its best, Buffy has always been in conversation with its past, building on ideas that were touched on in one season and asking the audience to think about them again from a different angle.  And the beginning of Season 7 sets up the perfect stage to try to do more of that.

I’d have loved to have seen a whole season of Buffy trying to keep her students alive while also preparing them to go out and live in the world.  Of Dawn making new friends and finding value in being herself, not just the Slayer’s sister or the mystical Key.  Of Buffy and Willow and Xander really getting to know each other again, and having a chance to talk about everything that happened to them last year.  A whole season of, in a way, seeing the show from the very beginning, but this time from the perspective of people like Giles or Jenny or Joyce.

But instead we got a lot of boring wank about an impossibly old super-god who can’t actually touch anything (but one who Buffy would definitely let Dawn die to defeat because this godlike being is so much more impressive and scary than Glory, trust us guys, please, we swear) and her army of interchangeable and personality-free super vampires (and of course Caleb, who’s somehow even more mind-numbingly boring than they are).  Instead we get a second half of the season in which Andrew Wells has more screen time than Willow or Xander or Anya or Giles or Dawn.  Instead we get to wonder whether Giles is the First and try to pretend to care that Spike has been hypnotized.  Instead we get Lies My Parents Told Me.

Oh well.  At least Faith shows up near the end.

[demonbunny5]

The Marvelization of dialogue is a blight on all forms of media and writers need to learn when to let a character shut the fuck up.

Wizard of Legend 2's demo just came out with the steam next fest and the game is constant fucking noise with NPCs making the most surface level quips about every little thing you do in the game.

Grab a pick up? Better make a quip about it!

Smash a breakable object? Quip!

Do literally fucking nothing for a bit? Oh you know that deserves a quip!

Annoyance is magnified because the first game was fucking stellar and managed to weave a compelling world with very little dialogue at all. There's juuuust enough sprinkled around to give you a picture of a wider world without being heavy handed or in your face. Case in point: The opening of the game/tutorial is a modern day setting in a museum with an exhibit on the titular wizard of legend. Your character gets sucked into the past by a weird artifact, and when you eventually beat the game (which will probably take a while because the game is hard as balls) you get sent back to your own time. All the museum displays on the wizard of legend's favorite spells/robes/relics/etc. turn out to be the build you had on your winning run.

It's a cute framing device, but it also feels like the tip of a much bigger iceberg for worldbuilding. Part of the tutorial is museum docents handing out demo arcana to let visitors experience what it's like to be a wizard. NPC parents with their kids say they love to come to the museum to get a chance to shoot fireballs. Some of the visitors are in wizard robes, but they explicitly refer to them as "costumes." All of the exhibits imply that the events of the game happened in the distant past. Are there still wizards around today? Did my character come to the museum because he's an actual student of magic, or was he just the equivalent of a wizard fanboy? There are electric lights and camera phones, are those magic or just regular technology? So many questions, so much potential room to explore in a sequel! I was excited to learn more about the world, and instead I get some dickhead doing let's play commentary over my runs.

Also doesn't help that the first game had beautiful pixel art and the new one looks like it's trying to ape Hades' aesthetic as hard as possible. It's infuriating because the core gameplay is still in there! It's still just as fun, and putting together a sick arcana combo is just as satisfying. But it's all drowned under ten layers of bullshit made to dress it up like something else. Even the fucking wizard selection at the start of a run seems like it was ripped out of Rogue Legacy. Really feels like they had an incredible first attempt and then immediately lost all confidence and just started shoving whatever they saw someone else do into their game. Granted it's a demo and early access, but so far it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

Anyways Wizard of Legend 1 is one of the best roguelites ever and you should go play it.

[romance-of-three-memes]

Anyway I'm going to talk about the world-building and 'lore' for that story I mentioned about some of the people from the Three Kingdoms era who were historically men being women instead. I don't want it to be a reflection of modern values, women clearly have more autonomy since they can join the military but it wasn't because of an attempt at realizing gender equality, a lot of that was because everything was so chaotic and you had to drum up support on such short notice that military leaders started going 'fuck it, I need to fill out my ranks, I'll settle for women if I have to', and they're almost always a minority in the group.

It certainly is a way to potentially avoid scenarios you'd rather not deal with, like a shitty abusive home life... If you can avoid being tracked down, anyway, because if a guy comes along and says 'hey give me back my wife/daughter' it's just easier for the leader to do what he wants and lose one soldier, the only time there's really any push-back is if the woman has distinguished herself enough for this to be seen as a detriment, but even then it's a 'you're not like other girls' scenario, or to make it sound more like something someone in this setting would actually say, 'you're a woman but you have the strength of a man'.

And there's plenty of social ostracism. It's begrudgingly accepted, the wider sentiment is 'look at the times we're living in, even women must take up arms'. A lot of people think these women are there because they were so undesirable as wives/daughters-in-law that no one wanted them, so their parents either kicked them out or sent them off to the military so they wouldn't have to provide for their needs as much, and they could potentially bring their families back some extra resources if they survived, or their husbands want to get rid of them without an official divorce and has another wife or concubine he likes more. That describes some of them, but certainly not all of them.

They tend to come from poorer backgrounds since families with more security are less willing to risk the more reliable bargaining power their daughters bring with arranged marriages, with the exception being women who get their position through hereditary means, like Sun Ce.

And Sun Ce wasn't really meant to be an heir, Sun Jian just had no sons and started bringing her along around age 13, which was fairly common for boys expected to inherit military positions, and went 'oh you know she's helpful, but once I have a son I can have her marry a good guy and she can help me train her brothers and sons when she eventually has them, she'll never have to step on the battlefield again' (Spoiler alert, he never had sons or knew his grandchildren). People occasionally think 'well Lady Wu and Sun Jian only had three children and they were all girls, *clearly* they didn't try that hard, what did they expect?' but you see, Lady Wu also had three miscarriages. So that's a bit of a sore spot. Maybe don't bring it up.

But here and historically it was actually Sun Ce's cousin Sun Ben that immediately took over when Sun Jian died, but a few years down the line he seems to have voluntarily stepped down. Who knows why, he could've easily held onto it since his father was Sun Jian's older brother and he was older than Sun Ce, but I envision him as being deeply uninterested in leadership positions and happy to be rid of it. Maybe Sun Ce kind of talked him into it because she knew it would be easier to convince him to step down and let her take over down the line and promised him it wouldn't be for long, just until she hit age 20 aka the age of official adulthood. There was trouble over a woman taking leadership of the clan, but everyone involved quieted down considerably after she proved herself to be more than effective. It's a bit harder to complain once she's carved out a good bit of territory for them and raised their status.

[will-you-pick-me]

So. I hate that this even has to be stated, because it should be a GIVEN, but.

This project and all people involved in the process of making it DO NOT, under any circumstances, tolerate:

- Racism

- Ableism

- Transphobia

- Homophobia

Or any other kind of bigotry, hate speech, harassment, or general shitty behavior. We are appalled at the things we are seeing being sent to other creators askboxes, even fans askboxes, and are severely disappointed in the community for behaving in this manner.

We know this is a small-but-loud minority of hateful members, but still. It's not acceptable. In no world should someone be called a "monkey" (HELLO??? DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF???) or sent transphobic messages in their askboxes.

Frankly, it's a bit terrifying. Where will the line be drawn for these harassers? How far is too far for them? What will they do next? Do I need to worry about my friends or fans in this community being sent death threats, next?

I'm appalled, but moreover I'm genuinely concerned about this community. We came here to share stories, be creative together, and have fun with a wider community who love the themes and tropes we love. Now, it feels almost as though the community is being turned against eachother from the inside out. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if maybe some TERFs/SWERFs or other bigoted people are capitalizing on the drama to stir shit and have a smokescreen under which to send their hate - it's unfortunately a tactic I've seen happen too often in too many communities.

While I have no proof that this is what's genuinely happening, I would like to encourage fans and creators alike to keep an eye out, block hateful anons where you see them, and if you feel safe and mentally well enough, check blogs that show up in your block lists to verify this suspicion.

I do not want anyone to retaliate to these blogs, as that would be lowering yourselves to their level and involving yourselves in drama that would be stressful on your mental, emotional, and possibly even physical health. I do, however, think it may be a POTENTIAL STRATEGY (note I say potential, here) to share these blog names PRIVATELY, and ONLY for the purpose of blocking and blacklisting - nothing else.

Again, do not retaliate to these blogs if you do happen to find out who they are. I strongly discourage that action and am not advising it in any way.

Retaliating against them would do several things:

- Give them an "excuse" to continue sending hate.

- Involve you in potentially dangerous drama.

- Expose you and your friends to hate campaigns and all associated hate messages.

- Continue a cycle of drama that nobody needs.

- Generally making the community even less safe.

So please, IF YOU DO find out who these people are, share PRIVATELY and SOLELY TO BLOCK/BLACKLIST.

In general, let's make this community safe, not only for races of all kinds, but also for every disability that we possibly can (we understand that some accommodations contradict eachother, which is a symptom of how varied the disability spectrum is, but that's deserving of a whole post of it's own), every sexuality under the sun, every gender expression and lack thereof.

We stand with the queer, disabled, and POC members of the yansim community, who quite frankly have made this community POSSIBLE. There's no denying they are a large percentage of this community and as such deserve respect for building the foundations of this place.

To my fellow creators, stay strong, turn off anons if you feel the need to, and don't let the hate drown out the work you're putting into this world.

To fans, please show eachother and creators your support, keep making fanart and blurbs and fanfics and headcanons, and in general keep putting good out into the community to keep it alive and drown out this hate and drama.

We CAN make it through this, we CAN keep going, and we CAN continue creating wonderful stories - together.

Stay safe, hydrate, eat, take meds/breaks from binders and gaffs/sleep if you need to, and we love you.

💗

[mariacallous]

Something strange is going on with Israel, writes Elie Barnavi, a former Israeli ambassador to France and a prominent historian and writer, in his autobiography Confessions d’un bon à rien: In less than a century his country “has gone through the entire sequence of European wars, but in reverse order.” 

Barnavi’s book (which has not been translated into English) was published in 2022. He could not have known at the time that a furious war between Israel and Hamas would erupt in late 2023. Even so, his analysis of Israel getting involved in Europeans wars “but in reverse order” is perfectly applicable to the war now raging in Gaza. To be sure, his vision is pitch dark: Israel’s wars are getting worse, in Barnavi’s view. Therefore, the potential for further escalation of the Gaza war in the wider region is considerable. 

What exactly does it mean to have European wars in reverse order? In Europe, religious wars raged on for most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fought between Catholics and protestants and their regional, princely or city-state backers. The situation only changed after the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, a double peace treaty that put an end to both the Thirty Years’ War in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Dutch Republic. From then on, states became the predominant actors in international politics. They certainly fought terrible wars, but also managed to contain and prevent them through peace conferences—the Concert of Vienna (1814-15) for example—where European powers guaranteed non-interference in each other’s spheres of influence. Finally, interstate wars in Europe stopped altogether after the Second World War, at least among member states of what has become the European Union. 

Israel, Barnavi argues, took the opposite trajectory. Israel’s wars began as battles between states: the Jewish state against neighboring Arab states, involving one national army fighting another. This interstate warfare ended with the Yom Kippur War in 1973. After that, Israel no longer fought large-scale wars against other states and instead mainly fought Palestinian guerrillas. Even in that new phase, however, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained a conflict between two nations, two national movements, over the same piece of land. Because of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, this struggle—which is raging still today—took on a colonial dimension.  

Beyond that, crucially, the war has changed in character. On both sides, politics and society are now deeply divided. Both in Israel and Palestine, the main internal division is between those who are secular and those who are religiously motivated. On both sides, the religious camp seems to be getting the upper hand. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Politico wrote recently, is “losing control” of his government because his far-right, religious coalition partners are uncompromising and pushing their way. For instance, the Israeli Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, and Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir—who both live in Israeli settlements in the West Bank—have publicly called for “migration” of Palestinians from Gaza and building new Israeli settlements there, and have referred to Palestinians as “human animals” and “Nazis.” Despite U.S. pressure, they have also refused to transfer tax revenues that Israel routinely collects for the Palestinian Authority to the government in Ramallah, Palestine’s de facto administrative capital. Netanyahu obviously no longer controls his own ministers. His religious coalition partners know he will not fire them. If he does, the government would fall and the prime minister, who faces charges on three cases of fraud, bribery and breach of trust, would lose the immunity that currently keeps him out of reach of the judiciary. 

On the Palestinian side, things are no better. For many Palestinians, 88-year old Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has lost all credibility. Under his 19-year tenure, the Palestinian cause and the fight against the Israeli occupation have largely disappeared from the international agenda. Hamas puts them back on that agenda. A December 2023 poll showed that Hamas’s popularity was actually growing—even among secular Palestinians who normally do not support Hamas and condemn the Oct. 7, 2023, massacres. This result should be seen as a sign of utter political despair; they have lost hope that less extremist leaders can achieve a just peace with Israel. 

In this way, what used to be a national conflict is increasingly turning into a religious conflict. Barnavi, who has studied Europe’s religious wars extensively as a scholar, writes: “The growing power of fundamentalists on both sides drags us back to the pre-modern, pre-Westphalian era—to the religious wars in Europe of the second half of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century.” 

This is bad news. Europe’s wars of religion were terrible. Everybody was fighting everybody, and there was no restraint in warfare. The French 16th-century philosopher Michel de Montaigne lived through them and wrote about them in his Essays. These wars led him to develop his theory of political governance and change through “petits pas” (little steps) instead of revolutionary, sweeping movements, so as to contain extremism and bloodshed. If religious lunatics have their way, he noted, compromises are no longer possible.  

Barnavi, without mentioning Montaigne, seems to come to the same conclusion. Two countries can negotiate a deal, he argues in his memoirs, with both settling for less than they originally demanded, using rational considerations. But two camps that deeply believe God has given them the land are incapable of doing this, because it requires them to renege on the fundament on which their faith and identity are based. 

The question whether Israel and the Palestinians can get their stranded peace process back on track thus depends less and less on negotiations between both sides—which was the case 30 years ago, resulting in the Oslo peace accords—and more and more on the struggle within the two camps between secular and religious parties. The more intense these internal power struggles become, the less likely the peace process can be put into motion again. This means, of course, that it also becomes more likely that the conflict will be settled militarily.  

European religious wars were eventually stopped because of the emergence of the modern, relatively secular state capable of compromise; its claims of the raison d’état eventually prevailed. The religious war in the Middle East, by contrast, is currently intensifying because the state (or the national movement, on the Palestinian side, which also used to be secular in character) is becoming weaker. 

If both sides are unable to broker a compromise, someone else needs to make sure things don’t spiral out of control, with Israel’s neighbors and other regional powers, including Iran (which is a theocracy itself), getting more directly involved. One can only hope that intensive diplomatic efforts, mainly by the United States and some Gulf states, behind the screens will eventually bear fruit. But thanks to books such as Barnavi’s, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: Compromise is now harder than ever.

[bluewithpurplepolkadots]

Saw the first three episodes of S2 of MAW recently! My thoughts:

-Positives-

While it’s early days so far? The world building is a hell of a lot stronger so far compared to season one.

Season one was kind of a mess in this department and yet also somehow too simplistic.

Season one had Tyler get over what would have been a culturally ingrained view of human kids being toxic WAY too fast and just weird aspects like the fact CEOs can just banish and unbanish who they want. There was then no further explanation or look into this frankly weird aspect.

We were also continually trapped at Monsters Inc: beyond I believe a single send up of a baseball game. It felt weak and small. It’s fine to stay in one place for a movie but for a tv series… ehhh.

Season two does a lot better in this area. We have monster society as a whole see comedy as… well a joke and not an exactly dignified practice compared to traditional scaring. We see Tyler’s home and his family together: including his grandma instead of them going one at a time to the factory to see Tyler.

We have them go to MU and they go to a fancy restaurant and a convention in these three episodes.

Even just having Val drive around Tyler on her scooter makes it feel like they’re in a real city. It feels wider. It’s a good choice: having those scenes where she drives him around.

Tyler just isn’t that funny and I’m glad his act is getting old.

I think in retrospect it was… a little off to me that season one seemed like it was going to have this wake up call for Tyler. For him realise he just wasn’t a good comedian. That the mifters would all be better at it than him at it and then it… just seemed to side step it with a doughnut joke that isn’t even that funny.

And it gets old for the kids here! Which I like!

Honestly a potential downside to the comedy idea is that it’s also just plain harder I think to be consistently funny as opposed to being scary. Jokes get old faster than heart palpitations do. If it didn’t have the ten times the energy advantage it probably wouldn’t be viable. And I like we got to see that Tyler is a good scarer at the convention. He has options. He doesn’t have to be a comedian honestly.

Also maybe they’re picking up that plot point again with regards certain Mift characters because Val seems to know the kids better. Are they setting her up to be a comedian? I could see it working out better for her. She can connect with kids better. Either Tyler becomes a scarer or a comedy assistant. Either works.

Query for myself: Hell one could argue maybe another issue is like. Monsters are talking to kids. When do they stop? Like at what age? Will this expose the monster world? Like Tyler’s heart to heart with a six year old was kind of funny because I wasn’t expecting it but like… bro. I have to wonder about the ramifications here. I’m wondering what the heck the CDA are doing. Like I think when a kid hits double figures it gets a bit dangerous.

Also will other monsters still scaring mean sometimes comedy doesn’t work as well on kids and vice versa? Or what? Maybe comedy means it’s actually scarier when a Fear Co employee has a turn because they don’t know what to expect. Who knows. I mean even if they don’t share kids. Kids have friends. They talk.

Val is well written here and feels like a real person. I didn’t dislike Val in season one but she does feel more of a real person here. She’s still wild and zany but she seems more… cohesive. It’s a little difficult to explain as this is more of a vague feeling I have about her than anything concrete. But I did think Val was fine in s1: I just like her much more here.

Negatives Less Duncan :( I miss that green asshole.

I mean I get why. Tyler is the main character and he isn’t at MIFT anymore. But he is still the best of the new characters. I have to be real here. Just.. have him go to the floor more to deliberately antagonise his bf Tyler? Come on.

Random:

Johnny was wearing what looked like a Hugh Hefner suit in that restaurant and I have no idea how to feel about that. Also I suspect he left that card on purpose.

From what I gather Rodger Rodgers is a popular character: but honestly haven’t really seen anything yet as to why that is. I don’t hate him but he’s just kind of… there with a random line about how his name sounds fake. Maybe he’ll shine later ?

I have been spoiled on the s2 finale in some regards: and I have to be real what I heard leaves me apprehensive because it sounds really off to me. But I’ll try to keep an open mind for now.

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

I was wondering aboyt creating a world of winged people, especially how their architecture would look. I imagine they'd have lots of tall towers with few ground entrances, most Entrances are partway up buildings or on rooftops. I also suppose the doors are wider than tall for their wings. How about security though, when every balcony/window is a potential entrance? Maybe windows are supposed to be small or doesn't open wide so people can't easily fit through? Would they have separate vocabulary between a balcony as we actually have but can also double as an entrance and a balcony that is meant to be an entrance to a building? Maybe buildings that even lack stairs or lifts is quite common?  Anything I'm missing or need to take into account? Also I imagine some of the homeless population might be in the trees I guess? Hey so I asked earlier today about a race of flying people. Just one more questions if you don't mind. What flying speeds/endurance would make sense? As I have it now, the top athletes can reach speeds of up to 350kmh, the equivalent of sprinting and can only sustain it for a minute. But I suppose the average person's top speeds would be more like 300kmh? The average person's casual speed would be around 80kmh I suppose, the equivalent of leisurely walking.

Ebonwing: Depends on how comfortable they are with walking. Lots of winged humans in fiction are as comfortable with walking as they are with flying, and if they are and do a lot of walking they’d have ground entrances and whatnot. If they *don’t* feel comfortable with it, or if it’s difficult for them, then they might favour building upwards rather than sideways. 

That being said, only air entrances are unlikely. There will be people who can’t fly well or at all, be it because they’re children or old or disabled. Unless you want to create a society that excludes these groups, you will need to construct your buildings around the presence of ground entrances.

When it comes to security, all you need is break-in secure doors and windows you can close at night, or shutters that are secure that you can close. Getting up on the balcony is often not that difficult in real life either, after all. 

Having different words for main-door-balcony and non-main-door balcony is certainly possible, but they might also just not distinguish between balconies and entrances, where balcony and front door are synonymous but the rare balcony that doesn’t have a door inside gets a different word. 

In terms of speed: Winged humans already don’t make much sense from a logical standpoint, which is fine because people are willing to suspend their disbelief for it. That also means you have leeway when it comes to top speeds, but consider that the fastest bird we know of is the peregrine falcon with a top speed of 389km/h according to wikipedia, which isn’t that much faster than your winged people–and that’s diving speed, not regular flight speed. Most birds will not reach 350 or even 300 km/h, and your average speed is likewise higher than most bird’s average. I personally would find it difficult to believe they can go faster than almost all real birds. That being said, do you even need to put a hard number on it? If you’re creating this species for a story, most people won’t care too much about how fast exactly they can go. 

Licorice: Ebonwing makes a good point: your society will need to consider the needs of its members who cannot fly well or at all because they are too young, too old, or disabled. 

As well as their wings, you need to consider their legs and feet. Many species of birds cannot perch, and some cannot walk. I’m not enough of an ornithologist to know which ones exactly, but I have never seen a duck or a swan in a tree, and although the place I live is swarming with seagulls, I’ve never seen a seagull perching in a tree either. Ducks and swans nest on the ground whereas the seagulls around here prefer rooftops, especially flat ones.

 I think the anatomy of your people’s legs and feet may dictate their architecture as much as their wings will. 

You may have noticed that birds who can fly often choose not to, especially if they’re only going a short distance. IIRC, for many species of birds it takes a lot more effort to get airborne than it does to start walking. Your winged people may prefer stairs; it may just be easier for them. 

I was wondering whether a society of people who can fly would develop an etiquette for respecting each other’s privacy. For example, in our society it’s considered very rude to walk up to a stranger’s house and peer in through their windows. Your flying people might have some similar protocol about not flying over or close to each other’s dwellings, unless invited. 

Feral: In architectural terms, a balcony is very much not an entrance (note in the link that “accessible” here refers to accessibility from an interior room). Neither is a window. In written media, being specific with your terminology can go a long way to keep you having to break down every little detail. What you are describing is more like a porch, which has the added benefit of sounding like “perch,” or veranda. (I thought it might also be helpful to know what a terrace is, as that seems like a practical addition to your architecture.)

Could someone leave or break-in via a balcony or window? Yes, of course, they can and do without wings here on Earth, but if you are clear with your terms, that will be understood your audience as at best not the intended use and at worst abhorrent and criminal use without you needing to say so. 

[yautjalover]

Aquatic Yautja Concepts

So, I've been discussing with fellow Yautja fans in Discord Servers how the world and objects in an aquatic Yautja species look like. I've taken a couple of weeks to pull this all together. I'm no artist, though I try! Maybe some of the actual artists in the community would want to join in showing what they picture, too! I'd love to see what they look like. :)

First is a concept of architecture for the aquatic Yautja. I picture them as having the ability to hold their breath for longer amounts of time underwater because of bigger lungs, and thus a wider ribcage. They would situate their homes in the shallower waters along the shoreline with easy access to the ocean. Their homes would have skylights to let in the light. These skylights are made from dried out leaves that were left to bleach in the sun and painted with a compound derived from a coconut-like plant that hardens the leaves to withstand the hurricane season. The bones of the structures are made from ethically harvested trees that were culled to prevent overgrowth. The lighter brown on the walls are dried reeds and fronds from the trees used to build the internal structure.

By the entrance there is a window that they hang fish to dry on a net; this differs from home to home depending on individuals. Some may prefer to dry theirs inside, hanging from the ceiling or special nets mounted just for this purpose. Their beds would on raised daises covered in fur from local animals and woven fabrics. They bath in the shallow pools along the shore with soap that's derived from a sweet tasting fruit. I was inspired by architecture in tropical areas where they utilize what they have to build and live their lives.

These aquatic Yautja are largely fisherman and don't really have blooding rituals. They are focused on a quiet lifestyle living among nature. Unlike their cousins in the jungles, they prefer a sedentary lifestyle.

Here is a concept for a potential pattern of an aquatic Yautja. I imagine they have an array of blues, greens, yellows, and browns to help them blend in with the water when they swim. They evolved to have fins on their arms and legs to aid in swimming, a dorsal fin that can be retracted into their backs. Their arms and legs would be a little wider, the forearms and calves, to better aid in swimming. These Yautja would have evolved to have little fins on their necks as well. Below are more ideas I have for skin colors. I'm horrible at art and kinda gave up on putting it on a base figure. Use your imagination, lol.

V2, V3, and V4 are some of the colors that I picture them having. I also threw in a version of a more colorful aquatic Yautja in V5 and a skin color palette for one that lives in murkier waters in V7.

I also have created concepts for a few accessories. I think that they would make jewelry out of netting, shells, the bones from the sea creatures they eat (they use everything from their meals to leave no waste), and sometimes dried scales from fish that have been preserved to keep their shimmer.

Here are zoomed in versions of the necklace. I didn't want to put too much detail in them...since I don't know how. I left them simple so the idea can get across. Their accessories can vary from flashy pieces with big shells and teeth or simple necklaces like the one on the right made with small rocks.

Lastly is a single concept I had for clothing. I have SO MANY ideas for clothing, but I've been sick the last week and haven't felt like drawing them up. I imagine they wear netting that's been sewn into fabrics of light tan, brown, green, and blue with some pieces of red. They achieve these colors through dyes made from the blood of various sea creatures and plants.

Here is a simple concept for a bandeau. I like to think that the females wouldn't care about showing off their breasts due to the warm climate of the tropics that these Yautja prefer. This bandeau is made up of loose blue dyed fibers with a see-through burlap type fabric to back it. Their clothing is loose, colorful, and derived from the world around them.

That's all of the concepts I have for now. Maybe eventually I will make more if I'm feeling up to it. I'm more of a writer, so these take time. I'd love to see other folks ideas about aquatic Yautja! ^^

Concepts created in Paint Tool Sai v2 and Photoshop CS6 by me.

[outeremissary]

🌟🌼💐 for Ismene!

Ismene our favorite amoral prophet Ismene <3

[prompt list]

🌟- Is this oc good at expressing themself through words or do they have to use other means?

Well. She’s “good” in that she tends to be effective at communicating what she wants. She is not good in that she chooses to do this in a way that pisses many people off and what she wants often includes “being passive aggressive” and “gaslighting people into thinking they don’t understand what they're hearing.” Why? Pettiness. Ultimately she’s not going to be wonderfully eloquent if pressed to do a large amount of public speaking because she’s rather impatient with it, and when it comes to emotional expression she’s awkward at best and actively resistant to any form of actual communication at worst.

I don’t remember if it’s been said before, but the book of prophecies that she writes before her death/public disappearance is written to often be obnoxiously cryptic and to require people to follow instructions blindly waiting for some incomprehensible symbol to make itself obvious. She leaves it with Jaheira, who hates it, and especially hates when those incomprehensible symbols do wind up manifesting. Poor Jaheira. If someone told me to watch for a “flash of clear-voiced cardinal crimson wading through shadows” to avert undefined world ending catastrophe I think I’d spend every day fighting the temptation to vandalize their grave.

🌼- What's your favorite thing about this oc?

Ooh, it’s hard to say- Ismene is one of those characters who’s out of my usual register in a lot of ways (especially with how reserved and emotionally disconnected she is), but god I have so much fondness for her. I think that a big thing is probably exploring the ways that her perspective is warped by her prophetic abilities- she’s in a place where she always seems to be drawn away from humanity very naturally, and that’s not coming from an obvious Bhaalspawn Blood(TM) place. I think it’s a lot of fun to think about the ways that evolves over time, both being changed by existing in the wider world herself and also by her powers and her importance in the world growing. She’s a very corruptible person in a way, but she can’t see how because she was raised in a way that bolstered her against the only form of corruption that seems like it matters: the direct influence of Bhaal. She has the potential to evolve into something very monstrous because of the way that she lets her unique talents feed this ego and this sense of superiority.

Dovetailing off of that, I really do just love playing around with a character who has a very nearly mundane background and the ways that it’s what grounds her in the world. She’s a horrible asshole with a nascent god complex, but she has all these deep, ordinary ties to normal people and places that tie her down as long as she’s in contact with them, and being passed off to Jaheira and Khalid guarantees she picks up more even if she’s not exactly the young woman Gorion might have hoped she would be. The ways that her sincere connections make her an ordinary woman forever instead of a godling are something I really enjoy. Plus: cooking up Sister Shenanigans with Imoen is a source of endless amusement.

And of course, there’s the way that she hangs over everyone forever even in her absence. Heart.

💐- Where is this oc's favorite place to relax?

While there were a large number of library nooks she inhabited in Candlekeep and she was very fond of her childhood room, her favorite place to relax growing up and the one that all places after was measured against was a large, shady tree tucked away not far from an inner corner of the keep’s walls. While nowhere is entirely private inside the keep and nowhere is ever truly far from people, it was just distant enough from the nearest buildings to be quiet, the rustle of leaves when a rare breeze slipped in eating the distant sounds of the keep’s other inhabitants. The library was quieter than this tree. It was certainly more comfortable. But there was a peace in being at the edge of the bustle of so much everyday activity. The shade was cool, the sun was bright, and it was easier for Imoen to stop between chores at the old tree than to go all the way up the library without being caught and sent back to whatever work she was neglecting (not that this stopped her when she wanted to, of course). Saturated in nostalgia as it is, it’s hard for anywhere after to match up to this tree at the edge of the tiny world of Ismene’s younger years.

[fondcrimes]

hii u posted about poetry recently and mentioned the difficulty in finding a good poem, and specifically that you think the issue is pedagogical—i’d be so curious to hear more of your thoughts about where current(?) pedagogy might be insufficient and/or just your thoughts about contemporary poetry more broadly! no worries if you’d prefer not to though! 🫶

helloooo I would love to elaborate abt my post! thanks for asking (apologies if it gets super long though) I'm gonna break my response down into separate parts so I can better explain my perspective

I will preface this by saying I know I'm usually being haterish when I criticize the writing world in general. I understand I won't like everyone's writing and that doesn't take away from the value of a piece, but my somewhat uncharitable POV stems from my ongoing observation of writing trends and marketability (which is why we have colloquialisms like ig poetry, tumblr poetry, booktok etc). writing trends are not inherently shallow or reductive, however, we as both creators and consumers can observe how trying to sell writing produces specific "brands" of writers. the categorization of contemporary writing, to some extent, will always about marketability and branding, and then we know that digestible and palatable writing sells. it sells a whole lot! and that's not inherently bad either because that's entertainment, sometimes you just wanna read some bullshit. additionally, I don't see the value of discouraging people from reading when it's something I'm very passionate about and more people need to be reading anyway. I could talk about this in great length too but my main beef is with the over-saturation of "palatable" writing, writing that is marketed in a specific way that caters to the consumer rather than engaging an audience and provoking our curiosity and wonder. my main beef is that it creates a type of reader/consumer who is stagnant and not intellectually engaged. I think we're all too familiar with the sort of people who are more concerned with the marketable aesthetics of reading/intellectualism rather than actually using their brain *cough* booktok *cough* but the scope is much wider. I would say that neoliberal politics necessitate this mindset/level of literacy in order to function but that's such a loaded statement kgfkgjf anyway moving on~

in order to understand why people like shitty poetry, I have to understand why people like shitty writing and also why shitty writing exists in such great amounts. I kept going back to elementary school, where we made first contact with writing and reading interpretatively. underpaid overworked teachers already have it hard enough, I don't blame them for not being able to spark the joy of reading in every child they encounter. literacy is unbelievably complex and capitalism is like blood in the water. it’s also bad enough that kids are actively learning how to put themselves into like social boxes while their developing skills are placed into boxes of their own like gifted, advanced, remedial, etc. all that shit gets internalized too. when I refer to the "intellectual", I am speaking from the belief that each person has the potential to embody intellect, rather than adhere to a deluded elitist view of gatekeeping intelligence. I want readers to engage their intellectual selves because we're living in a cultural moment where it seems like nobody is using their brains anymore, nobody is thinking critically, and that's bc it's easy to shut your brain off. it dawned on me that if a child could be dissuaded from reading entirely due to bad experiences/treatment, a child could also be dissuaded from building analytical or evaluative skills of what they're reading. there are so many college students who can read but want to use chatgpt to write their essays... so many (voting-aged) adults who can read but consistently make bad-faith interpretations of tweets, articles, books, etc. I won't get into the marxism of it all but it goes back to the capitalist state, we need to be literate enough to work and participate in bureaucracy and get married and raise more workers but that's it, it's okay if our literacy stops there and I would argue politicians actually prefer that. but I'm not saying the alternative isn't difficult though... because it's meant to be!

ok so the pedagogy of it all. poetry is notorious for being kind of inaccessible to the common person for a variety of reasons but I'll focus on the fact that we're conditioned to prioritize convenience or become "lazy" readers. I didn't really know how pervasive this notion was until I was listening to ada limón talk about how people will straight up say they don't like poetry. she was talking about how really has more to do with how it's taught rather than what it is. I also reconsidered my own relationship with poetry as a form. I have the typical writer predisposition: my favorite book growing up was the giving tree, I wrote sad gay poems in high school and obviously I was a teenaged fangirl during the peak tumblr web weaving era. but I didn't think about poetry too deeply until a few years ago (during quarantine-ish) I decided I wanted to start writing seriously again after a series of depressive episodes and found my way back to contemporary poetry. I should say I'm veryyy biased and prefer studying modern poetry but I know a few things about that old greek shit too lol. I read poems I instantly really loved, but some poems even by the same poets fell flat or I straight up disliked, but I didn't know why I had those opinions. so I kind of became really obsessed with studying my favorite poems on my own, going line by line and figuring out the writing techniques and measuring their effectiveness. (I read a lotttt of writing criticism too)

now that I'm thinking about it, it was very adhd of me to obsessively read and reread short-form writing bc sometimes I simply don't have the attention span for a 20k-word creative nonfiction piece unfortunately lolll.... this was noticeably much more fun, esp compared to reading poetry in school elementary/middle/high school (even though I had enjoyed those classes too). as a teenager of the subversive aesthetic age, I still carried the notion that most poetry was about obfuscating meaning, or like purposefully being vague out of pretentiousness and exclusion. like I get why somebody would find poetry annoying, there's plenty of annoying poetry out there even in the literary world. all of this is to say that reciting poems in school or trying to teach poetry to students in absolutes (like this poem means this, this poem means that) is not conducive to comprehending the form/genre. you can’t achieve poetic understanding or connection to a poem through objectivity or removing yourself and your emotions. a poem is not just static, it’s meant to interact quite intimately with a reader. ada limón describes how transformative it can be leave a poem and come back to it. sometimes, the intimacy has more to do with the state of receptiveness than the text itself. poems are constantly concerned with emotional/somatic information whether you’re reading or writing them. I always explain it to myself in relationship terms, which is why it might feel impossible to build that relationship with something that seems doubly foreign

this doesn’t really stop at elementary school students. as you get older and read more poetry, you start to catch on and see that poets within a movement are effectively doing similar things, and I fear a good amount of poets are doing the same BORING or PREDICTABLE thing. (I will be nice and not name names)

it wasn't until I read a lot of poems that I noticed my favorite poems did the exact opposite.

this is one of my favorite poems everrrrr it made me write poetry bc I just wanted to do everything he did. it has also drastically shaped and informed my taste. so I will try to briefly explain how it has influenced my writing:

Let me begin this time knowing the drumming in my dreams is me inheriting the earth, is morning lighting up the rivers.

there have been weeks in my life where this line "inheriting the earth" played in my head over and over again like a mantra. "inherit" is such a loaded word, culturally and politically. I think I had been enamored by the sheer power of it, esp as a black person who has spent the majority of my life feeling unworthy of existing:

a brown child on a beach at dawn straining to see their future.

I had to sit with that feeling and characterize its meaning. for me, "inheriting the earth" immediately looked like a stampede of horses fearlessly galloping across the plains:

Let me run at break-neck speeds toward sceneries of doubt.

I could say a lot more about this poem, but moving on~

some valuable lessons I learned from being inspired by poetry: kill my pride and obliterate my quest for originality. at this point, I've embraced being a copycat:

because in my noble solitude, I have inherited nothing.

Our heads turned alongside the window, chasing a breakneck road.

I read jackson's poem up and down, left to right, tried to solve it like a rubik's cube. I wanted to turn my love for this poem into data points I could use in my own writing, but I kept hitting a wall. I couldn't shake the feeling I was stalling something inevitable, circling the truth embedded in my writing like an eagle stalking its prey. I considered the strain of the futureless brown child:

objects of my brutal childhood fascination

an instinctive deserter at the finale of my girlhood

one day I stumbled upon this article, the pieces suddenly started to come together:

as a society, we do entirely too much about youth and maintaining youth, so much to the point where the cultural obsession is perverse and the child is neglected. I only say this to offer an alternative, wherein we consider the childhood self not as a means to regain lost "purity" and powerlessness, but to take our power back. I love this article so much; I think it perfectly captures why writers are constantly fighting themselves and their words. it's evident one's learned self-consciousness and uncertainty cause someone to over-explain and impede on the poem. this makes it a matter of emotional fidelity and trust, rather than technical skill or knowledge. if poetry is inaccessible, I think it's only because we have become inaccessible to ourselves. this is what I mean when I say a good poem is "distilled", it has more to do with the clarity of the feeling you're trying to evoke or convey. it requires self-knowledge and making space for yourself to maintain emotional fidelity if that's what you want (ofc you can also evoke vagueness or uncertainty through the clarity of the form). I wondered, how can a creative know what they're doing if they don't know themselves? soon I realized at its core, the writer struggling with words was an issue of trust, on some mary oliver wild geese shit. there is a great deal of trust involved when you let yourself wonder. and sorry it's hard for me not to get all writer-brained and idealistic about this subject so please bear with me when I say I have good news, we can always find the way back to ourselves.

I think poetry should be about trusting the self and others, trust that they won't shatter the fragility of you in their closed hand. good poetry is deep intimacy and touchy-feely shit. learning how to write hurts because you’re also learning how to unlearn. it's extremely hard to teach that in a society that is more concerned with making sure you learn how to become wholly alienated from yourself (I've written extensively about how this damages the creative spirit, I'll save you the rant). in the midst of my poetry renaissance, I developed a schema around poetry in my attempts to write poems that were intimate and personal and powerful. I wanted to read stunning poetry, so I approached every poem like its intent was to pierce my heart. ofc that doesn't have to be your approach, but as someone who somewhat struggled with subtext and implicit messaging as a child, I am super into patterns that help me reach meaning. but I could only develop taste or preference through knowing myself and listening to my creative impulses, letting art and words alter my heart and my mind. it's about all that mushy gushy woo woo therapy shit. it had to be about me regifting myself a sort of agency. the resting state of a poet is precarious and sometimes contradictory. I believe in trust but I still feel the urge to over-explain myself or my thoughts for manyyy reasons. sometimes I don't even fight that urge, but the point remains. in order to teach and understand poetry, you have to know yourself (your intentions, your haunts, your beliefs, etc). in order to trust the reader, we have to trust they know themselves, or at least are willing to learn how to do it.

Reader, I should have married you sooner.