#describing things incorrectly

[kissoflightning]

November 6th, 2038: Connor plays a dangerous game of tag with Kara and Alice

Incorrect descriptions of the events of Detroit: Become Human

[lesbianwithchainsaws]

Honestly whoever coined the term "torture porn" for horror movies is my number 1 enemy

[victory-cookies]

add another tally to ‘genetic potential for having adhd’ boys. first tick being the fact that my grandfather has it. Second one being that. well I don’t know what my dad has going on but it’s something. Third one being that my sister’s therapist just told her she may have adhd

[elodieunderglass]

Hi! As someone who grew up in (I think?) New England and now lives in the UK, is living outside the US all it's made out to be? I know you moved a while ago and didn't go to "escape the US", but I imagine you can offer some insight. I'm sorry to be projecting some envy on to you, but the life you describe seems so lovely and livable. Your neighbors, your chickens, your gardens--it seems like you have some actual community. I (probably incorrectly) picture you living in the stereotypical British cottage that all of the British chicken-keeping companies seem to use to advertise their products. When I picture life in Europe, I picture the small fragments of life that we get from you and other bloggers, like the one with the escapist pet llama in France. I know that the UK has plenty of problems, and that we are only seeing slivers of your actual life, but do you think there's a different sense of community and livability over there that we don't have here? New England is also so standoffish that it might just be negatively skewing my perception of the US, too. Thanks for your thoughts, if you want to give them!

I’m sorry it took so long to reply!

I'm going to write a personal response about the impact of material conditions on parenting, because I think that's the most useful response and outcome. However, this response will be missing a lot of the political framing that it ought to have. I believe that describing the policies and infrastructure that the UK has, and how they impact on myself, explains a lot about how I am able to parent, what my life looks like, and in turn how that impacts a society. I think it is useful to outline SPECIFIC POLICIES and show what they do, because understanding specific material changes is a necessary part of any shift, let alone revolution. So this is not about escaping anywhere, or anywhere being better than anywhere else; it's about frameworks that I use which are (essentially) nonexistent in the USA, and how they contribute to a liveable society. It might seem like "why does a question about your life sounding nice, with chickens, start with 'maternity leave'?" but... this is the answer.

1. Parental Leave In the UK, parental leave is a minimum 6 months. After the first 6 weeks of full pay, the government pays you a very small stipend every week (currently £188/week) plus a very small child benefit. Some jobs offer better-paid leave as a benefit. You accrue your fully paid vacation time (6+ weeks) while on leave, and therefore most people use it at the end of their leave to pad it out. Parental leave can usually be split between parents. A perfectly normal thing is for a mother to take the first 6 months, then hand the baby to Dad for his three months off with it. Impacts of parental leave on my personal life: - I had time and space to adjust to being a parent. - I was able to pay my bills while not working. - Our children went to nursery (daycare) when they were over the age of 1. - I was able to return to work in the exact same job, back into the benefits of working (which, for me, include intellectual exercise and making a positive impact on the world.) Impacts of parental leave on society: - "it takes a village to raise a child" - well, here's the bloody village. - You spend time attentively raising a baby, in a stage of life where that returns a lot of dividends. - You have a year to make "parenting friends," forming networks and not being isolated. Everyone else with a baby the same age is doing exactly the same thing too. - Babies grow up in social circles with friends pre-installed. - Parents develop support networks. - "Toddler group" culture is normalised. On parental leave you are supported to build and structure a social life. - There is daily foot traffic and people moving around towns during the day, because Not Everyone is At Work. Some number of mothers are in coffee shops with babies every day of the week. Some number of parents are always drifting through libraries on a Thursday morning. In any town there will be adults in their 30s engaging with local resources, shops, events, classes, museums, culture, and friendships during the weekday - because they are having a year off with their baby. This is hard to articulate, but has huge knock-on effects. - after all, things like shops and museums and libraries are expected to be Always Open (staffed by workers) but workers are also expected to be Always Working (at places that are open) so when are working people going to use these resources? - people can be friendly and know the people in their community if they have had some time, space and reason to meet them.

Culture of part-time working In the UK it's very normal for kids to have two working parents, with one - or both - parents working part-time. That's what my husband and I do. Impacts of part-time working on my family: - My partner and I each spend one day a week with our nursery-age child while the other two are in school, allowing us to have a relationship with the youngest that isn't a constant four-way tug-of-war. - We meet our friends in a regular, routine heartbeat of connection, social expression, and support. It is extremely good to see your good friends once a week, and maintaining friendships over years is extremely good for you. - it's very good for the kids. not only do they have a lot of parental attention (which improves behaviour, teaches them skills, makes them good citizens, etc) but they see their own best friends all the time, building their own relationships and connecting THEM to the networks of "village." - we have adults during the week who can do things like go to the bank, pick up prescriptions, or do other capacity-balancing things within work hours. - we can collect our schoolchildren from school and they don't need afterschool care 2 days out of 5, saving money and letting us see our kids. - working part time means that we need to take less time off work over school half-terms and holidays. Impacts of part time working on society: - more working adults are available during the week to do things like the PTA, local committees, local volunteering, local mutual aid, local classes and groups. More working adults can do things like walk their dogs, have allotments, and take their kids swimming. Working adults can run toddler groups for new parents, who then return to work part-time, to come and help run the toddler group. - I feel like this is obvious, but if you want a society with amenities, then you have to staff and use the amenities. - If you don't have part-time workers, you're relying on retired and nonworking people to run your communities during the week - and they do a brilliant job! - but a balanced society should have people of different ages and abilities working together. - again, you have people in coffee shops in the week; you have people USING things and DOING things in the week. - you are NOT forcing one parent into Permanent Babycarer Role and one parent into Permanent Worker Role! This is threaded through all of these points, but you do NOT have to set up a permanent Stay At Home Parent / Working Parent dynamic when your society offers infrastructure for flexibility and supportive policies.

More Holiday (and different school holidays) Okay, so you're a working parent in the USA. You get 2 weeks of vacation time a year... and your kids are off school for 10-12 weeks of summer. how do you work and also raise your kids? well, usually through some unholy feats of juggling, expensive summer camps, and relying HEAVILY on family. This isn't sensible or necessary. (It's also incredibly hard on American teachers.) but it DOES mean that parents are in a vulnerable state in America. In many American families, the three-month childcare gap in summer makes it really hard for women in particular to work, widening inequality. In the UK, workers usually have 6 weeks of holiday. School summer holidays are only 6 weeks long. There are lots of other holidays - every six weeks, kids get a week off for Half Term - but with two parents and a culture of part-time working, you can just about cover it every year, and still have a bit of vacation time for yourself, Christmas, and travel. What this means for my family: - We can have three kids and two nearly-full-time jobs. - We see a reasonable amount of our children. What this means for society: - you've possibly picked up on the recurring theme that the USA requires a Designated Parent to be removed from the workforce/society and turned into a permanent caretaker, because otherwise the family couldn't manage the admin. The knock-on effects (resentful caretaker, resentful breadwinner, stressed out children, family with less economic/emotional resilience, caretaker expected to do all domestic chores and admin, breadwinner expected to exhaust themselves to provide resources, children do not interact/engage with breadwinner) form the backbone of the American family unit, which is not a great (or default) way of actually raising kids. - another huge expectation in America is that Family and the Church will step in to provide this missing material support - i.e. church summer camps. or grandparents taking the kids. Which - what do you do if you're not Christian? if you're estranged? if you're queer? if you moved away from the small town where that would have worked? if your parents are harmful or unsafe? again, policy changes and infrastructure are making family life workable.

Better Nursery Options (and nursery support) The UK has some of the worst nursery options and highest bills in Europe, I think? (citation needed) but it's still cheaper and higher-quality than the USA. My mother in the USA is always ranting about "don't you want to raise your OWN children?" and "they will be harmed by their carers, or made to watch TV!" but on the contrary - I LIKE my kids having multiple caretakers and a qualified professional care team. they are NOT watching TV. their nursery staff take them to do LOVELY THINGS and I can work an ENTIRE DAY without being CLIMBED ON. There is SOME financial support available for sending kids to nursery. From the age of 3, or younger if the parents are low-income, kids receive 30 hours a week free childcare from the government. (in practice they've just changed this and it isn't as great as it sounds but it's a slight savings). What this meant for my family: - I could afford three kids. And they are EXACTLY three years apart (lol). this means that as each child turned 3 and got cheaper childcare, the next one started, so we were never paying 2x nursery bills. - This allowed us to have children, a nice number and a nice age gap, who would therefore grow up together as a nice sibling set, but we could afford it and afford their childcare. - this literally shaped my family. size, age gap, and choices. everything about their dynamics, their relationships, and their future as siblings was shaped by this random scrap of policy. What this means for society: - EVEN STAY-AT-HOME MOTHERS IN BRITAIN SEND THEIR THREE-YEAR-OLD KIDS TO NURSERY. - EVEN CHILDMINDERS (people who run in-home childcare facilities alongside raising their own kids) PUT THEIR KIDS IN OTHER NURSERIES! - that's right - stay-at-home mothers DESERVE breaks. it's an EXHAUSTING job, with no recharge time or holiday, and tremendous pressure to be perfect all the time. - it is so, so normal to use nursery. it's not a bad choice, or a place to "park" your children, or something Bad Parents do, or something you Must Become A Stay At Home Parent to Avoid Using. there are no terrors of satanists or people being hurt or kids being locked in closets, as many Americans do worry about. having help with childcare is just a wider village, a care team, another aspect of your kids' lives. - seriously, if you speak to American parents on the internet, it isn't just a financial thing - daycare is perceived as being BAD for children, something a good mom should break herself to avoid using. - in the UK it's... nursery. Kids go to nursery. you pick the days. they go and pick daisies. - it's okay to have a break from parenting and being Touched all the time. - it's very good for kids to start making friends and having other carers.

Decent schooling In England, free public schooling starts at aged 4. children wear uniforms from age 4. hot meals are about £3 a day and are free for the first few years. there are no metal detectors or shootings. kids learn phonics, cursive, maths, tech, cooking, art, sports, etc. at a reasonable standard, not dependent on local property taxes - okay, so, background: in the USA schools budgets are state-set, but are ALSO often linked to local property taxes and local funding pots. so schools in "poor" areas generally have less resources, while schools in areas with nice houses and Good School Districts have a completely different experience. In some USA schools, teachers have to use food banks and buy pencils for their own students. It's all pretty wild and inconsistent. This is somewhat true in the UK (better schools tend to be in 'better' areas) but the funding is more consistently given and there is a national-level monitoring and regulation program. (it isn't left up to 50 insane separate states who all want to strip school budgets and cut their funding to do this according to Personal Vibes.) this means that you can just... send your kids to school. they learn things. and then come home. It's fine. you can just send your kids to school. everyone else is too. Many communities are walkable, and "driving kids to school" is not the default. Kids are expected to become independent earlier, and society is expected to be safer. at the age of 11 they usually walk to school with their friends. What this means for my family: - my kids are pleasant, the older two can read, they have opportunities and are supported. I don't feel like school is damaging them. On the contrary. - it isn't on me as (Femme Parent) to be their entire cultural and intellectual education. they're exposed to diverse viewpoints, people, and teachers. their mental landscapes are broader and more resilient than if it had just been me. - (I was homeschooled, you see.) What this means for society: - children are mildly educated. - children are fairly safe when they're Away From You. - teachers are a reasonable profession that's normal to go into. and teachers live fairly normal lives. - social inequality is reduced through equity introduced in education. - educational opportunities are more consistent and less stratified. - children can safely get out of family homes (and parents can work).

walkable communities, but you got that.

public transport, but you know about that.

socialised healthcare, but you get that. As a result of all these things, raising a family is materially different in the UK, with effects that knock on throughout. With one or two tweaks - now you have present and engaged fathers. Now women can be working parents without breaking themselves in half. Now babies make friends they'll keep their whole lives. Now you CAN be distant from toxic family because you don't need family support to raise kids. But all of those things could be put into policy. They are not something British people invented. ANY SOCIETY THAT LAYS THINGS OUT COULD ACHIEVE THIS. And I think that's worth saying and laying out. Livable communities can be made livable with livable infrastructure. infrastructure is something we can make.

[3liza]

i said this YEARS ago when the 'vibes based literacy" discussion started because i had been reading about dyslexia to try to help my partner at the time, who was undiagnosed: the book about dyslexia that i was reading described precisely the techniques used in the "contextual guessing" reading education system, but as dysfunctional adaptations by dyslexic children. the contect guessing and memorization thing is a way of teaching entire generations of children to be functionally dyslexic, a profound and devastating disability, when they do not have dyslexia and do not need to have it. it's horrifying. it was how my partner read things, and watching him try to read something out loud was extremely demonstrative of the struggle he was having.

ken goodman probably had dyslexia and didn't know it, it's the most common learning disability in the world, an estimated 20% of all humans on earth have some degree of it.

In the paper, Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words. Instead, he argued that as people read, they make predictions about the words on the page using these three cues: 1. graphic cues (what do the letters tell you about what the word might be?) 2. syntactic cues (what kind of word could it be, for example, a noun or a verb?) 3. semantic cues (what word would make sense here, based on the context?) Goodman concluded that: Skill in reading involves not greater precision, but more accurate first guesses based on better sampling techniques, greater control over language structure, broadened experiences and increased conceptual development. As the child develops reading skill and speed, he uses increasingly fewer graphic cues.

he's completely wrong, this not how fully literate people read. this is how dyslexic people read. fully literate people are using phonics and the alphabet all the time, that's how we read so fast and so easily, even texts that we're unfamiliar with or that aren't in our native language. i can scan a page of italian, french or norwegian and get the gist of it even though i don't speak the languages. i can sound out those words and pronounce them, even if im pronouncing them incorrectly, just by reading the actual letters and phonemes.

relying on context to predict which word comes next is what leads to the kind of aphasia dyslexics often exhibit not only while reading, but when speaking aloud. my partner would swap words that were contextually correct but not what he actually meant all the time. for example if he wanted me to hand him a blue comb lying nearby on a table, he would say "could you please hand me the green brush?" or if he was describing a cat he saw, he would often swap in another contextually-related word, one that sounded the same, like "bat", or one that was conceptually related but incorrect, like "dog". as a result i had to ask him to clarify or repeat himself many times to figure out what he was trying to say. it created profound problems for him and separated him from me and everyone else. the worst part is that he was barely aware of this. when he was driving it was extremely difficult for him to follow or give directions because he would swap out "left" and 'right" randomly.

you cant actually read like this.

She thinks the students who learned three cueing were actually harmed by the approach. "I did lasting damage to these kids. It was so hard to ever get them to stop looking at a picture to guess what a word would be. It was so hard to ever get them to slow down and sound a word out because they had had this experience of knowing that you predict what you read before you read it."

[physalian]

How To Make Your Writing Less Stiff 5

Movement

Dredging this back up from way back.

Make sure your characters move, but not too much during heavy dialogue scenes. E.g. two characters sitting and talking—do humans just stare at each other with their arms lifeless and bodies utterly motionless during conversation? No? Then neither should your characters. Make them…

Gesture

Wave

Frown

Laugh

Cross their legs/their arms

Shift around to get comfortable

Pound the table

Roll their eyes

Point

Shrug

Touch their face/their hair

Wring their hands

Pick at their nails

Yawn

Stretch

Sniff/sniffle

Tap their fingers/drum

Bounce their feet

Doodle

Fiddle with buttons or jewelry

Scratch an itch

Touch their weapons/gadgets/phones

Check the time

Get up and sit back down

Move from chair to tabletop

The list goes on.

Bonus points if these are tics that serve to develop your character, like a nervous fiddler, or if one moves a lot and the other doesn’t—what does that say about the both of them? This is where “show don’t tell” really comes into play.

As in, you could say “he’s nervous” or you could show, “He fidgets, constantly glancing at the clock as sweat beads at his temples.”

This site is full of discourse on telling vs showing so I’ll leave it at that.

Epithets

In the Sci-fi WIP that shall never see the light of day, I had a flashback arc for one male character and his relationship with another male character. On top of that, the flashback character was a nameless narrator for Reasons.

Enter the problem: How would you keep track of two male characters, one who you can't name, and the other who does have a name, but you can’t oversaturate the narrative with it? I did a few things.

Nameless Narrator (written in 3rd person limited POV) was the only narrator for the flashback arc. I never switched to the boyfriend’s POV.

Boyfriend had only a couple epithets that could only apply to him, and halfway through their relationship, NN went from describing him as “the other prisoner” to “his cellmate” to “his partner” (which was also a double entendre). NN also switched from using BF’s full name to a nickname both in narration and dialogue.

BF had a title for NN that he used exclusively in dialogue, since BF couldn’t use his given name and NN hadn’t picked a new one for himself.

Every time the subject of the narrative switched, I started a new paragraph so “he” never described either character ambiguously mid-paragraph.

Is this an extreme example? Absolutely, but I pulled it off according to my betas.

The point of all this is this: Epithets shouldn’t just exist to substitute an overused name. Epithets de-personalize the subject if you use them incorrectly. If your narrator is thinking of their lover and describing that person without their name, then the trait they pick to focus on should be something equally important to them. In contrast, if you want to drive home how little a narrator thinks of somebody, using depersonalizing epithets helps sell that disrespect.

Fanfic tends to be the most egregious with soulless epithets like "the black-haired boy" that tell the reader absolutely nothing about how the narrator feels about that black-haired boy, espeically if they're doing so during a highly-emotional moment.

As in, NN and BF had one implied sex scene. Had I said “the other prisoner” that would have completely ruined the mood. He’s so much more than “the other prisoner” at that point in the story. “His partner,” since they were both a combat team and romantically involved, encompassed their entire relationship.

The epithet also changed depending on what mood or how hopeless NN saw their situation. He’d wax and wane over how close he believed them to be for Reasons. NN was a very reserved character who kept BF at a distance, afraid to go “all in” because he knew there was a high chance of BF not surviving this campaign. So NN never used “his lover”.

All to say, epithets carried the subtext of that flashback arc, when I had a character who would not talk about his feelings. I could show you the progression of their relationship through how the epithets changed.

I could show you whenever NN was being a big fat liar about his feelings when he said he's not in love, but his narration gave him away. I could show you the exact moment their relationship shifted from comrades to something more when NN switched mid-paragraph from "his cellmate" to "his partner" and when he took up BF's nickame exclusively in the same scene.

I do the same thing in Eternal Night when Elias, my protagonist, stops referring to Dorian as "it" and "the vampire" instead of his name the moment they collide with a much more dangerous vampire, so jarringly that Elias notices in his own narration—the point of it being so explicit is that this degredation isn't automatic, it's something he has to conciously do, when everyone else in his clan wouldn't think twice about dehumanizing them.

—

Any literary device should be used with intent if you want those layers in your work. The curtains are rarely just blue. Whether it’s a simile with a deliberate comparison or an epithet with deliberate connotations, your readers will pick up on the subtext, I promise.

[korattata]

Of i have to read the word 'dandori' one more fucking time-

[asexual-amanita]

Going nonverbal is not a thing.

I’m a part time AAC user due to verbal shutdowns. I use a high tech AAC device, text to speech apps, communication cards and a DIY letter board.

A lot of people like me, who experience verbal shutdowns incorrectly label themselves as “nonverbal”. This misuse of language actually harms the nonspeaking community, and speaks over their lived experience. Nonverbal and nonspeaking describe a full time, long term state of being unable to speak much or at all.

This is not the same as sometimes being usually able to speak, but experiencing verbal loss.

Now don’t get me wrong, if you’ve been using nonverbal to describe yourself for a long time, only to realize that word wasn’t for you, it can be a big change. Even I was quite resistant at first to change my use of language.

But this is important. Nonspeaking people are so often left out of conversations, and so rarely given chances to share their opinions. But the majority of the nonspeaking community has made it clear that this is not a word for people like me, and it’s important to listen to them.

If you’re struggling to find a correct term for temporary loss of speech, here are some alternatives ⬇️⬇️⬇️

Verbal loss

Verbal shutdown

Speaking break

(Episodic) Speech loss

Communication shutdown

Losing words

[kissoflightning]

November 5th, 2038: On this day Kara tries to steal Todd's Rock Candy to give to Alice. Unfortunately, she gets caught.

Incorrect descriptions of the events of Detroit: Become Human

[dykeby]

As a butch I feel like there's a thing happening especially on tiktok with baby gays where lesbian/sapphic terms are being used incorrectly, not only that but they seem to think they're similar to the gay/achillian terms. They use terms such as bear, twink, wolf and otter to describe body type. We use terms such as butch, stem and femme to describe gender expression.

Butches and femmes come in all shapes and sizes, they're not just skinny white women with long hair. Butches and femmes come in all kinds of fucky gender identities and expressions, they're not just tomboys and "straight passing" women. They can be skinny cis white women with long hair, but that's not all of us - fat hairy he/him butch dykes in leather gear are the crutches of the community.

I love being a butch, it's been so freeing to accept things about myself that I never would have without the proper knowledge of queer and sapphic history. I love femmes of all kinds, I'm here to cater and be a gentleman in whatever why they need me and in return I get taken care of by a lady but none of it is in a heteronormative way

[majorshatterandhare]

[ID:

Image One: a photo of Jonny Sims and Tim Ledsam in costume as Jonny d’Ville and Gunpowder Tim of the Mechanisms, pointing handguns at each other while outside. Tim is holding a gun with a longer wider barrel and has his non-dominant hand on the forearm (part under the barrel). Jonny is holding a more typical handgun with a single hand and his shoulders unsquared (his torso is not facing where he is pointing the gun).

Image Two: a screencap of tags reading “#hes lived long enough to learn techniques we could never dream of #hes on another level”

End ID]

ALRIGHT [caps reads: alright], so, Tim is actually holding his gun here better than Jonny is. You should be supporting your handgun with two hands (as long as you have two functional hands). Jonny’s shoulders aren’t square; obviously, if they were really trying to shoot each other, aiming wouldn’t be too difficult because they are so close, but Jonny here is very much being *dramatic,* which is not surprising. Now, while Tim’s gun is a handgun, yes, the length of it gives plenty of room to hold it the way he is. And, more importantly, IMO, he is holding it with two hands! Which also makes sense, because he is the gunner. His gun looks to me to be of a higher caliber, which would give it greater recoil and would make holding it the way he is make more sense because of the longer barrel. It has the length, he might as well use it to support it as best as he can!

This was how I felt upon seeing this originally, but I checked with my dad, who knows more about guns than I do, and he agreed. He was however, bothered that Tim’s finger is on the trigger, and even after explaining that these *must* be fake guns, he still didn’t like it, because of real life gun safety logic (which is still a good point, though I’m not going to get into it here).

So TL;DR: if anyone is holding a gun incorrectly in this photo, it is Jonny, not Tim.

Why is he holding the pistol like a rifle

[handweavers]

something that comes up for me over and over is a deep frustration with academics who write about and study craft but have little hands-on experience with working with that craft, because it leads to them making mistakes in their analysis and even labelling of objects and techniques incorrectly. i see this from something as simple as textiles on display in museums being labelled with techniques that are very obviously wrong (claiming something is knit when it's clearly crochet, woven when that technique could only be done as embroidery applied to cloth off-loom) to articles and books written about the history of various aspects of textiles making considerable errors when trying to describe basic aspects of textile craft-knowledge (ex. a book i read recently that tried to say that dyeing cotton is far easier than dyeing wool because cotton takes colour more easily than wool, and used that as part of an argument as to why cotton became so prominent in the industrial revolution, which is so blatantly incorrect to any dyer that it seriously harms the argument being made even if the overall point is ultimately correct)

the thing is that craft is a language, an embodied knowledge that crosses the boundaries of spoken communication into a physical understanding. craft has theory, but it is not theoretical: there is a necessary physicality to our work, to our knowledge, that cannot be substituted. two artisans who share a craft share a language, even if that language is not verbal. when you understand how a material functions and behaves without deliberate thought, when the material knowledge becomes instinct, when your hands know these things just as well if not better than your conscious mind does, new avenues of communication are opened. an embodied knowledge of a craft is its own language that is able to be communicated across time, and one easily misunderstood by those without that fluency. an academic whose knowledge is entirely theoretical may look at a piece of metalwork from the 3rd century and struggle to understand the function or intent of it, but if you were to show the same piece to a living blacksmith they would likely be able to tell you with startling accuracy what their ancient colleague was trying to do.

a more elaborate example: when i was in residence at a dye studio on bali, the dyer who mentored me showed me a bowl of shimmering grey mud, and explained in bahasa that they harvest the mud several feet under the roots of certain species of mangroves. once the mud is cleaned and strained, it's mixed with bran water and left to ferment for weeks to months.  he noted that the mud cannot be used until the fermentation process has left a glittering sheen to its surface. when layered over a fermented dye containing the flowers from a tree, the cloth turns grey, and repeated dippings in the flower-liquid and mud vats deepen this colour until it's a warm black. 

he didn't explain why this works, and he did not have to. his methods are different from mine, but the same chemical processes are occurring. tannins always turn grey when they interact with iron and they don't react to other additives the same way, so tannins (polyphenols) and iron must be fundamental parts of this process. many types of earthen clay contain a type of bacteria that creates biogenic iron as a byproduct, and mixing bran water with this mud would give the bacteria sugars to feast upon, multiplying, and producing more of this biogenic iron. when the iron content is high enough that the mud shimmers, applying this fermented mixture to cloth soaked in tannins would cause the iron to react with the tannin and finally, miraculously: a deep, living grey-black cloth.

in my dye studio i have dissolved iron sulphide ii in boiling water and submerged cloth soaked in tannin extract in this iron water, and watched it emerge, chemically altered, now deep and living grey-black just like the cloth my mentor on bali dyed. when i watched him dip cloth in this brown bath of fermented flower-water, and then into the shimmering mud and witness the cloth emerge this same shade of grey, i understand exactly what he was doing and why. embodied craft knowledge is its own language, and if you're going to dedicate your life to writing about a craft it would be of great benefit to actually "speak" that language, or you're likely to make serious errors.

the arrogance is not that different from a historian or anthropologist who tries to study a culture or people without understanding their written or spoken tongue, and then makes mistakes in their analysis because they are fundamentally disconnected from the way the people they are talking about communicate. the voyeuristic academic desire to observe and analyse the world at a distance, without participating in it. how often academics will write about social movements, political theory and philosophy and never actually get involved in any of these movements while they're happening. my issue with the way they interact with craft is less serious than the others i mentioned, but one that constantly bothers me when coming into contact with the divide between "those who make a living writing about a subject" and "those who make a living doing that subject"

[carriesthewind]

Ok. I am maybe kind of losing my mind just a little bit.

A few days ago, I mentioned in a post that the IA only cares about information being digitized, not about actual digital access. And I mentioned that access includes patrons being able to actually find what they are looking for, and suggested IA did not prioritize that critical aspect of access. But I didn't really go into any more detail.

So someone over on bluesky linked to this write-up of a talk Brewster Kahle gave about using so-called AI. And one of his reported statements made my mouth drop open in shock.

...and then I read further in the article and realized it was incorrectly reporting basic facts around Hachette, so I had to go and listen to the whole speech myself.* (And I want to say, briefly - he raises some legitimate potential uses for LLMs! He's kind of a dick about some of it ("it's up to us to go and keep [Balinese] culture alive"), but some of the things he's talking about actually seem useful.)

*Incidentally, while Kahle doesn't lie about the ALA brief in the speech, he absolutely misleads about the nature and facts of the case and deliberately omit the part of the story where the IA decided to suspend the one-to-one owned-to-loan ratio thing, despite repeatedly emphasizing that one-to-one was what the IA was doing with their lending program.

And oh my god. He really said what the article reports. (This portion starts around 20:10.)

He says that the IA has scanned over 18,000 periodicals. And that they used to have professional librarians manually create descriptions of the periodicals in order to catalog them. (Sidenote: there are existing directories, but he describes their licensing terms as "ridiculous." This is not a field I know much about, but I spoke to one person who agreed, though for different reasons. His reason is that you can only license, not purchase, the directory descriptions. The person I spoke to was instead focused on the prices demanded for the licenses. Regardless, the idea of creating an open, free directory seems both like an incredible amount of work and an amazing resource...if it was accurate.)

But according to Kahle, it took 45 minutes to an hour to create a description and catalog each periodical.

And so now, instead, they're using AI to make the descriptions and so it only takes 7-10 minutes!

"And yes it hallucinates, and it has some problems, and whatever — but it’s a lot faster than having to write it yourself!"

Oh. My god.

Just.

YOU ARE KNOWINGLY INTRODUCING AI HALLUCINATIONS INTO YOUR CATALOG?!

(And yes, he says that they are "confirmed by a librarian" but it can't really be, not if it's only taking 7-10 minutes! Maybe the librarian can do a quick check for super obvious errors, but actually checking a AI's summary work requires actually going back to the source and reviewing it yourself!)

I just....

I need to emphasize for those of you for who aren't familiar - if a book or article is miscataloged, it is effectively lost. Because it doesn't mater if a library or an archive owes it - if someone can't find it when they are looking for it, it is not only inaccessible, the only way to find it again is through chance. Imagine if you went into a library, but instead of organized shelves (where if even if you can't find what you're looking for, the librarians know where to look), every single book was just piled in a heap.

If a book is miscateloged, it still exists, but it is lost, not truly accessible. And they know that this is happening, "but whatever." Because Brewster Kahle doesn't actually care about real, practical, digital access. (Much less non-digital access.)

(And then to top it off, he goes on to criticize the Library of Congress for not being "access oriented.")

I just. 18,000 periodicals. And they've knowing, recklessly lost who knows how many of them. I feel like crying.

18,000 periodicals.

[dekariosclan]

Oh, wise oracle!

I remember reading somewhere that Early Access Gale says or suggests he'd only been with Mystra. Did I hallucinate that?

Ah, Anon! I so appreciate the ‘wise oracle’ greeting, but I do have to protest—I am definitely not the wise oracle of EA Gale! I showed up well after EA, not knowing who this ‘Baldur’ person was or why he felt it necessary to have a gate installed on his property. I then pulled a wizard out of a rock and well…here we are 😂

That being said: thank you for your ask anon! After I received it, I was curious myself as to what EA Gale might have said and if there was more dialogue about his relationship with Mystra. I was able to find this video on YouTube, and it’s a great watch for anyone who hasn’t seen it! It’s really interesting because you can see that originally, a huge chunk of Gale’s Act 1 scenes and his Act 2 romance were lumped together into the Tiefling party. There’s the flirty talk, the Art of the Night, lovemaking, his relationship with Mystra, him getting on his knees and showing Tav the orb, and even a snippet of the morning after conversation where Tav can ask if he still loves Mystra, etc.

This was the first time I ever saw footage of EA Gale’s romance, and I have to say I think almost all of the changes Larian made to it and to Gale’s character for the final game were the right call. Breaking up the scene into more fleshed-out portions and spreading them out over Act 1 and 2 flows much better, making the romance a slow-burn fits Gale’s situation much better, and making him less cocky (though I do enjoy the occasional dashes we see in the video 😂) and more vulnerable were, imho, all great choices that crafted the perfect pixel husband we have today.

But—the one thing I wish they hadn’t changed was EA Gale’s dialogue explaining what happened with Mystra, because it makes it very clear how Gale was manipulated and emotionally abused by her. And even though the essence of what he describes still remains in the final game, the fact that the dialogue was changed to be less direct and more subtle has led to some people incorrectly interpreting Gale’s actions as manipulating/gaslighting Mystra (???) even though one of the main themes of Bg3 is how each origin character is a victim of abuse from someone with power over them.

So I’m going to go over the Mystra portion, not only to answer your question, but also to discuss the dialogue a bit more in-depth.

First, your question: Does EA Gale suggest that he’s only been with Mystra?

When Gale tells Tav that his talents earned him the attention of Mystra, Tav asks what that felt like. Gale responds that it felt like “love,” and then says:

This, I think, is what your question was referring to. This definitely indicated that Mystra was Gale’s first love, and the fact that he was ‘a very young man’ at the time would also suggest that it was his first romantic relationship as well.

I have to say I’m glad that Larian changed this in the final game, with Gale clearly explaining that Tav is not the first mortal he’s been with. I personally think it makes the romance sweeter, because it proves that Gale loves Tav because they’re Tav, and not just because they’re his first mortal lover.

Also, the current game makes it clear that Gale is no longer in love with Mystra (though again, some people seem to misinterpret the fact that he still talks about their past relationship to mean he still loves her?) whereas the EA dialogue had him less certain about being over her. Again, I’m glad Larian changed that and made it clear he only has eyes for Tav.

Now, here’s where it gets very interesting and where I wish they had kept the dialogue the same:

Tav asks if Gale is saying he made love to a Goddess. Gale confirms, then continues:

Tav asks what happened next, and Gale says:

Tav says: “Let me guess: he proposed?” and Gale replies:

Gale then goes into the full backstory of the orb, which is essentially what we see in the current game.

But my god, the Mystra dialogue was so much better here! In the current game, the seduction/manipulation aspect is most clearly explained when Gale says, ‘I was an amusement to her, a mortal to be trifled with, amused, and eventually discarded.’ That line perfectly describes everything that happened, but to also have the EA lines about Mystra’s actions would have, I hope, left a lot less people confused in regards to who was in the wrong:

Mystra sought out Gale because of his talent and because he could be of great use to her

She seduced him, and did so easily because he was an innocent young man and powerless before a goddess’s charms

She toyed with him, let him fall in love with her, then spurned him and broke his heart

She cast him out to die alone after he tried to win her back by proposing to her an with impressive, but dangerous, gift—even though she knew he’d had no idea what he’d done, and he’d only made this mistake because he was a lovesick young man whom she had seduced

And all of that is not even taking into consideration the fact that she later tells him to kill himself in order to ‘earn her forgiveness.’..

Mystra, when I catch you—

So, yes, I do wish they would have kept all of that dialogue in, and for one other reason, too: it makes it even more poignant when Gale attempts to ‘propose’ with the offer of Godhood for Tav in the Act 3 boat scene. Because this dialogue would have made it very clear he’s repeating the same ‘folly’ he made with Mystra, by proposing with an offer of power, because he assumes that’s all he has of worth to offer his beloved. So to have Tav say I don’t want/need power—i just want you—it’s even sweeter after everything Gale has gone through.

And finally!

I loved seeing that Gale is still the cutest cutiepie in EA, just like he is in our final game version:

🥹💜

(Edited to add an important note: If you’d like to read some excellent meta from a true EA expert, please check out @galedekarios’s blog which has a ton of info! She also has a great post on this same subject with a more in-depth analysis of how/why the Mystra dialogue was changed.)

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing a "Perfectionist" Character

Perfectionism

The tendency to demand of others or of oneself an extremely high or even flawless level of performance, in excess of what is required by the situation.

It is associated with depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and other mental health problems.

Traits & Symptoms of Perfectionists

While there are several ways to define and describe perfectionism, most theories identify the following 3 features (or traits) of perfectionists (Antony & Swinson, 2009):

Adopting standards that are extremely difficult or impossible to meet.

Setting expectations so high that they damage, rather than enhance, their performance.

The presence other mental health problems, including depression and anxiety.

Symptoms of Perfectionism

Unreasonably high standards and expectations can be harmful throughout our lives, damaging enjoyment and performance and preventing engagement across many situations, including (Antony & Swinson, 2009):

Career and educational performance. Perfectionists at work and in school settings often set overly strict standards for themselves and others, leading to too much time measuring and assessing, and resulting in delays and missed deadlines. Perfectionist managers may become angry when an employee arrives late, even when they complete extra hours later in the day. Students who set themselves too high standards may feel depressed unless they are at the top of the class.

Neatness and aesthetics. Extreme neatness and cleaning may leave perfectionists with little time for other activities or may hold them back from beginning an activity if it may leave a mess. An excessive tidiness focus can lead to upset and disagreement at home and outside.

Organization. As with neatness, if things are left disorganized or not set out in a particular way, perfectionists may experience anxiety or react angrily. They may spend hours planning and making lists, yet still failing to engage in the task.

Writing. Sending emails, filling in forms, completing assignments, and even writing in a card may be delayed due to fear of making mistakes, making the process of writing tortuous.

Self-consciousness in speaking. Perfectionists may be overly self-conscious regarding what they say and how they say it, and may be unduly concerned with incorrectly pronouncing words.

Physical appearance. People with perfectionist standards can set impossibly high standards regarding their hair, clothes, weight, and body image. Individuals may be late for work, prioritizing their time on finding the perfect outfit.

Cleanliness. Perfectionist behavior may focus too much on health and wellbeing. Health-obsessed individuals may be concerned about touching anything or eating something they haven’t prepared, and frequently visit the doctor.

Ultimately, for people with impossibly high standards, only the impeccable can be accepted. Failing to reach this level can be so devastating it may not be worth trying to succeed at all (New Scientist, 2019).

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[seancekitsch]

hellooo hello, can I request Viktor with journalist!reader?

“Hello?” A soft low voice calls from the doorway of your workspace. You do not have to look up to know who it is, but you still do, your smile widening as you see the scientist darkening your doorway. He looks deadly serious, but when does he not? He’s out of his usual academy lab wear, opting for a thick wool coat that he drapes on your coat rack and a deep burgundy shirt. 

“Oh, Viktor! Come in! Did you see the article?” you usher him in as he shuts the door behind himself, getting up to turn on your kettle for him. You turn your back as he rests his cane against your writing desk, sitting himself in the cozy upholstered velvet chair you had dragged into the room once it was finally announced this would be an office for you instead of shared space. You get his tea bag ready and grab a lemon so he can have a fresh slice in his cup, having memorized exactly how he takes it. 

“I did,” he pauses, and you stiffen, lemon in hand and little knife glittering untouched. 

You inhale deeply, already anticipating the rest of his sentence.

“…But I do have some notes.”

You sigh deeply, turning around without a teacup in hand. He sits smugly, perched upon the chair as if it was made to be his throne, looking better in it than you ever have. Without a further word, you sit back down at your desk and pull out your original draft of the article from your files. Your handwriting is penned neatly across the pages, edits in the margins and additional notes pinned meticulously to the edges. Viktor reaches across the desk and snatches them from your hand before you can begin to read them out loud. You huff, but it falls on deaf ears, Viktor now pouring through the draft of the article. 

“I believe I gave you due credit, despite the fact that my bosses told me it was about the Man of Progress himself and only his contributions,” you argue, though he has yet to say anything. He gets to the sixth page of your draft before looking up at him. You remember the tense conversation you had with the editors, their disdain for his “undercity upbringing” and yet you had to remind them of where you had also come from. It was work to get Viktor mentioned in the article, but it was effort he deserves.

“Men of progress, I liked that," he tells you, and flips a page, "And this part? You described the color of the Hexcore incorrectly, it is more of a... cyan," he smirks slightly as he criticizes one of the notes, and pulls one of the additional notes off the corner of the page, "You refer to Jayce as handsome three times. Why is this? The words you use for me are maven, mastermind, sage. Why? Am I not also handsome?”

Any nerves you have dissolve at the playful smile that graces his hollow cheeks. His lips pale and chapped, but still a thing of great beauty. 

You giggle, and snatch the notes back from him. 

“Do you really think I’d use my writing to tell all of Piltover that you’re mine? Thats quite a large personal bias, it would detract from my ethics. I’m a professional, you know,” you joke with him as you’re getting up from the desk to move around it, now resting your ass on it as you lean in front of Viktor. You reach your hand out, fingertips outstretched and quickly met with his own, dancing in the space between you. 

“No, I am just… messing with you,” Viktor winks as he finishes his sentence, his other hand coming up to brush against your hip. 

“The article was good, I am glad you spoke about the ways our research can be used for medical progress,” he admits, “So many of the Councillors have their own agendas they’d like to slap onto my work.”

You lean into his touch, your fingers curling around his as you slide off the desk and perch yourself instead on the arm of the chair. You hope that the article portrays your pride for him, albeit hidden within the punctuation rather than out loud. 

“I know what the geniuses intentions are,” you tell him, "And that you two are the key to our future."

"Is that so? Maybe you should be the one in charge of our funding then," he looks up at you, eyebrow raised as he continues teasing.

"Please," you gently slap at his chest as you lean further into him, "on my salary? Your lab is nicer than my apartment."

"Speaking of which..." he trails off, looking at you now expectantly.

"You want to come back to mine?

"Unless you'd rather I sleep in my lab tonight. You did say it was nicer than your apartment."

The kettle whistles, and you lean down to kiss him.