#essay intro examples

[aztrosist666]

i mentioned the israeli occupation of palestine in an ap lang argument essay i wrote about the idea of home as a physical location vs a concept and my teacher drew a sad face next to it. ally of all time /sar

[rancidrubysoho]

>see a video essay on a subject i'm interested in >ask creator if the essay is content or context >they don't understand what i mean >produce illustrated diagram showing what's content and what's context >they laugh

"it's a good video essay, ma'am"

>start video >it's context

[writer-logbook]

How to improve your writing style : a 5-steps guide.

Intro : I love the 5-steps format, don’t mind me. Again, this essay is based on my personal experience.

Read in different genres. Ok, I know you’ve probably heard this advice more than you can count but did you ask yourself why it is so important ? You probably wonder ‘‘How reading some historical fiction will help me writing my sci-fi novel ?’’ For that simple reason my friend : they meet different purposes. You don’t know how to describe a castle ? It’s okay, historical fiction got your back. Because it aims at something more realistic and accurate, it would tend to be more specific and detailed when it comes to describing clothes, furniture, places and so on. Why ? Because, most of the time, THEY ACTUALLY EXISTED. Take a closer look at how it is done and draw your inspiration from it (but please avoid plagiarism it’s bad - and illegal)

Take notes and CLASSIFY them. To make reading somehow useful, you have to actually make it concious, which means you have to write things down to remember them. When I come across a description I like, I tend to takes notes of the figures of speech that are used and class them, so when I have to write a similar scene, I have an idea of what have been already used, and weither or not it achieved its goal. I am NOT talking about COPY another author’s style !!!! It’s about finding inspiration and new approaches. I also tend to take notes of the new words I wish to incoporate into my writing. The thesaurus is my new bestie.

Rewrite the same scene from different POVs. First of all, it’s fun. And it’s a really good way to spot quirky formulations. For instance, if you describe a ship, the captain’s POV should be different from that of a simple observer. The first one would be naming each part princisely whereas the other would only be admiring the surface without knowing anything. If the caption is the same for both POVs, maybe you should consider write your passage again (or have a good reason, like a strong amateurism for the mere observer). It’s go hand in hand with coherence - but it would be an essay for another time (maybe).

Read your text aloud. I put major emphasis on that one because it’s as underated as reading books for various genres. You have no idea how much we DON’T speak the way we write. Even dialogues are crafted in our stories - so make sure to give them proper attention. (i even read my email aloud but-). I KNOW how cringey it might be as I am doing it MYSELF but the benefits are worth the 35-minutes shame I endure from my own mess. Before you can shine, you have to polish (shout out to the one who said that first if it’s not me).

Take a step back. I strongly advice you to let some time pass before reading your text again and profreading it. It will cast a new light upon your work and with fresh eyes you’d be more likely able to spot what needs to be erased or rephrased.

That’s all for me today. Since I would be entering my proofreading phase for my writing contest, the next essay would probably about proofreading (with examples from my own novel ?). Unless someone wants me to write on a specific subject first.

Gentle reminder that I’m still French and not a native so please forgive my dubious grammar and outrageous mispellings.

[writingwithfolklore]

How to Nail your School Essays

                Not to brag, but I’m kind of a big deal when it comes to essays at my school. Since I started highschool I haven’t received a grade less than 90% on an essay—so I’m here to share my secret. This works for the classic essay, but you can also use the same advice and fit it to formal reports or other academic writing.

1. Your essay is about 2 things, demonstrated 3 or more times

This is how I’ve always thought about essays. They’re about two ideas, demonstrated as many times as you need to fill the wordcount. Shakespeare + Feminism, Media + Truth versus Misconception, etc. etc. If you’re lucky, your teacher or prof will give you one of your elements. You’ll get assignments like, “write an essay about Hamlet” or “write an essay about the American dream” lucky you, that’s your first thing—now you need to connect it with another.

This connecting idea is my favourite part because you just get to choose a concept or idea you’re interested in. Here’s a tip, if your first/given topic is something concrete, choose an abstract connecting idea. If your given topic is something abstract, choose a concrete.

So, Hamlet (concrete) could be paired with any abstract concept: Loyalty, Truth, Feminism, etc.

However, if your prof gives you something like, “truth” or “race theory”, you’ll find it much easier to connect that with a more concrete thing, like a book, movie, or other piece of media, or even a specific person.

If you are luckiest, your prof will give you both things, “write about the American Dream in The Great Gatsby” in this case, you’re onto the next stage.

2. Stick to the formula

Tried, tested, true. Nothing wrong with a formula, especially not when it gives you A+ grades. Typical essay structure is:

Intro with thesis

2. 1st Body

2a. Evidence that proves it 1

2i. Justify its relevance

2b. Evidence that proves it 2

2ii. Justify its relevance

Etc.

3. 2nd Body

3a. Evidence that proves it

3i.Justification

Etc.

4. 3rd Body

4a. Rise and repeat, you know where this is going.

5. Some may argue…

6. Conclusion

Let’s break it down.

Thesis:

                Thesis completely outlines all your points, or the three+ places you’re demonstrating your connection, and why it matters.

                Here is an intro + thesis I wrote a couple years ago:

“This literature review will explore the impacts influencer marketing has on the children that regularly consume social media content. Specifically, this review will focus on how influencers can impact children’s brand preferences, dietary choices, and lastly, the influx of children taking advantage of this system and becoming influencers themselves.”

Or

“Burned discusses the human aspect of sex work and reverses reader’s expectations on sex workers, while Not in My Neighbourhood discusses prostitutes as victims of a system created against them. Both challenge readers’ perceptions of sex workers, effectively drawing attention to the ethics of displacing sex workers from their cities.”

                So you have your connection (children and social media)/(Burned and Not in My Neighbourhood and sex work), and the different ways you plan on exploring or proving that idea (children’s brand preferences, dietary choices, children becoming influencers.) etc.

                You may also have a more specific stance in your thesis. Such as, “In Macbeth, ambition is shown to be Macbeth’s ultimate downfall in these three ways.”

The Body Paragraphs

                You start out every body paragraph with the point of the paragraph, or what it’s aiming to prove. Such as, “Influencers often include advertisements within their content, which can encourage children to feel more amiably to certain brands their favourite content creators endorse frequently more than others.”

                After this claim, you spend the rest of the paragraph further proving it through examples. This will look like citing a specific source (a book, academic journal, quote, etc.) such as, “The authors claim likeable influencers can associate their likeability with the products they use, influencing children’s perception of brands, referred to as ‘meaning transfer’ (De Veirman et al. 2019)” (super important to always cite these sources!)

                The last part is after each example/proof--you need to justify why this proves your point/is important. So, “This proves children are more influenced towards certain products depending on how close of a relationship they perceive to have with the influencer.”

                Typically, your evidence will all lead into each other so you can transition to the next piece of proof, then the justification, rinse and repeat until you’re finished your paragraph. You can have as many pieces of evidence as you want per paragraph, and the longer your word requirement, the more you’ll want to fit into each point (or the more bodies you want to have.)

                Piece of evidence + why it matters, rinse and repeat.

Some May Argue:

                This is a small paragraph just before your conclusion where you anticipate an argument your readers may have, and disprove it. So, for example, you’d start with, “Some may argue that with parent supervision, the impacts of influencers on children could be lessened or moot. However…” and then explain why they’re wrong. This strengthens your argument, and proves that you’ve really thought out your stance.

Conclusion:

                Lastly, you want to sum up all the conclusions you came to in a few sentences. Your last line is one of the most important (in my opinion). I call it the mic drop moment. Leaving a lasting impact on your reader can bring your essay from an A to an A+, so you really want to nail this final sentence.

                My final sentence was, “Ultimately, it is hard to know in advance how technology and social media will impact the development of children who have always grown up with some form of screen, but until they grow up, parents and caregivers need to take care in the content their children consume, and their very possible exploitation online.”

This sentence is backed by the entirety of the essay that came before it, and usually leaves a little something to chew on for the readers.

Any other tips I missed?

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

While I agree with most of your posts

I think bringing up grammar in song writing is just kinda weird

Like as long as a song isn't as egregiously grammatically incorrect as 'I'll do what I should have did' (thank you deacon blue) it just isn't a relevant criticism?

Even the song writer you respect most probably doesn't write their songs like an essay they can lose marks for. And that's a good thing! Songs would be a lot worse if writers were worrying about these things

It's just such a bizarre thing to bring up- and unfortunately it kinda makes your other points look less valid because it comes across as weird and petty and like you'll drag Swift for anything (Plus obsessions with 'correct' grammar is just rooted in abliesm, classism and racism- so yeah not a good look)

Plus bringing up your literature degree... like you never studied poetry? Which famously plays with grammar and sentence structure? Like that's inherent to the genre and while very little of TTPD is poetic, lyrics are still most similar to poems then they are to essays or journal articles

Sorry you just really hit a nerve here cos it's just such a ridiculous thing to bring up.

Okay, yes people don't write songs like essay's. However, they often still use determinable grammar rules in art.  

You are keying into the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar rules. 

The prescriptive rules are ones that you are most likely to find first listed in dictionaries or textbooks. Descriptive grammar rules contend with the dialectal differences and slang. In either case, rules and stipulations or exceptions are noted in various linguistic analysis of the demographic's dialect. Both subgroups of grammar are consistently evolving as the use of the English language changes over time.  

Before I move on, I just want to say that I am well-aware of the deep history surrounding the debates on proper grammar. These debates, of course stem, from sociohistorical issues surrounding class, race, and ableist attitudes. You are correct. However, the academic conversation on grammar and linguistics has advanced dramatically into the subdivision of grammar-practices with respect to dialectal and cultural differences. I judge Taylor Swift's grammar as similar to my own, since she claims to be from my “neck of the woods.” Thus, I feel it is entirely appropriate for me to throw metaphorical tomatoes at her.  

 In the juncture of this difference on prescriptive and descriptive, I want to make that point that people who utilize the difference well often take prescriptive rules and bend them to fit their specific thematic point, thus the lyric forms to its set of descriptive grammar rules. These artists do it with such finesse and precision, unlike Taylor Swift, that it’s nearly awe-inspiring.  

For instance, Kendrick Lamar uses many AAVE typical syntactical structures to make his music personalized art. He won a Pulitzer for it. Take, as an example, the intro to his song “Humble” in which he writes, “Nobody pray for me / It been that day for me” (2017). This is not grammatically correct according to the prescriptive grammar rules laid out in the 1940’s. However, linguistic scholars do not operate on so strict a pendulum anymore. Notice, too, that Lamar is not actually breaking any grammatical rules, only playing with the purpose and form of his syntax, when we take into account the dialectical intention with which he uses “it been” as a poignant use of the past participle form of the verb “to be.” Thus, the simple sentence of “it is” changes into the “it been” as a subjective call first to his cultural dialect and to the thematic gesture of the song. As the phrase “it been” leaves out the helping verb “have” which would put the phrase into present progressive tense should it be present; however, it’s noticeable absence as a stiff detraction from prescriptive grammar rules, focuses Lamar’s thematic point on moving the audience to mediate on the past as it intrudes on the present time. His use of language discrepancy between prescriptive and descriptive rules focuses recognition on his dialectal culture and on his main thematic point as it hinges on making sure to notice where you’ve been in life in order to stay humble and live with authenticity. He is a masterclass on descriptive grammar being used in such a beautifully artistic way that I am damn near in tears for his music.  

Okay, moving onto to your point about poetry not being grammatically correct. You are quite wrong here, because poetry "plays" with syntax but it does not throw the rules out. Much like the example I laid out above, poetry does the same thing wherein it plays with prescriptive grammar in a thoughtful way that often ties into the moral or theme of the work. Poetry centers on a different form of syntactical methodology... yes, you are right. However, the emphasis is still on the necessity of understanding grammar structures like poetic feet, meter, rhyme scheme (etc). It's not a free-for-all. The best poets of the last 6 centuries have been some with the most linguistically precise sentence structure that I've ever read. I can give you examples, but if I do that this answer will become a million words long.  

I am, however, sorry to have struck a nerve or come-off like a know-it-all. I was only expressing my frustration that Taylor Swift is apparently one of the biggest artists in the world and she doesn't even bother to ask a friend if the meaning of her phrases gets lost in excessively languishing grammatical structures. For instance, in her song “Chloe or Sam or Marcus or Whatever” she is stacking so many phrases hinging on coordinating conjunctions that the meaning of the phrase itself loses any poignant message. She writes:

Named Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus And I just watched it happen As the decade would play us for fools And you saw my bones out with somebody new Who seemed like he would've bullied you in school And you just watched it happen (Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus).

In this stanza alone there are 6 coordinating conjunctions stacked together, interspersed with additional prepositional phrases and 2 extra relative clauses. It is the most egregious run-on sentence I have ever seen published before. I've seen better, cleaner prose in the work I've graded from High School freshmen. Not only could she have said it in less words, but the way she is writing it makes it drag on and on. The meaning gets lost, and any emotional impact is shut down because people get lost in the wordiness.

It’s a failure on her part, and it’s clear how just writing a run on sentence with no meaning is so much different than the way that someone like Lamar is masterfully arranging language to fit his purpose.  It's offensive that she gets to make a million-billion dollars off so little effort. 

Sorry, I wrote you an essay, but I am so incredibly passionate about writing. Also, I’ve been listening to Lamar a lot today because of his recent diss track, and it just reminded about how much of a lyrical genius he is. Sorry, I detoured into a rant about how cool he is too. And I need people to understand that I am not critiquing Swift because I need to dunk on someone in order to bolster my own sense of self-worth. I just want better mainstream art, and I want people to have better, stronger art with which to engage.  

I did not mean to hurt your feelings.  You are quite right that obsession with "proper" grammar is bullshit; however, I am not looking for some old fashioned "proper" nonsense. I want people to write like Lamar, with intelligence and passion while he bends the notions of grammar, not like Taylor Swift with obvious run-on obfuscated and stupid phrases.

edit: Also, good writers do actually worry about grammar. It has to do with illocutionary forces behind the phrases. The best among us knows the language inside and out, and that is why they are the best writers.

Edit 2: Also, I've been thinking about this, but what do you think literary and poetry critics do? You say it's bizarre to critique Taylor Swift’s poor grasp of the English language? Of course, I'm critiquing that... she's the one who calls herself a writer. I don't go around checking everyone's grammar, but if you call yourself a "good" writer and a poet, obviously expect people to analyze the words on the page.

[volo-omnia]

Pokemon Legends Arceus is about Home and what it means to create a Home, change my mind (a mini essay)

Main series titles in the Pokemon series tend to follow themes and explorations of them. With mythology and tradition from Gold/Silver, our relationship to nature in Ruby/Sapphire, truth vs ideals in Black and White, and even the reoccurring themes of treasure and past vs future in Scarlet and Violet.

While PLA is a new departure from most series titles, it still explores a bunch of themes that are central to its story. While the land of ancient Hisui is partial to old traditions, divine gods, and the endless wild, several characters in the game have a recurring theme surrounding on the idea of "Home". This could be how "home" is defined, how one creates a home, and what it means to lose one.

One of the foremost examples of this is you, the player. While we know nothing of the player character outside of what is shown in the intro sequence and possible dialogue choices, the prompt of PLA is obvious. You were taken from your home by Arceus to be dropped into Hisui. Whatever life you had before, you will never come back to. And upon waking up on the beach that Laventon finds you, you have little to no memory, no money, no pokemon, and no where to go.

You have no home.

Now for the player character while it can be interpreted or headcanon a variety of possibilities, (such as the player character being the same player character from D/P/Pt) because it's a player character and meant to be a blank slate, we essentially don't know anything about the hero canonically outside of this. For all intents and purposes the hero has no home to begin with. But there is one thing we know. By the end of the game when you finally meet and defeat Arceus, he doesn't send us back home. We remain in Hisui. Once again, we cannot return to the home we came to. Hisui is our forever home now, but the choice is ours whether we accept or reject it.

This theme occurs a lot with the other characters of the game, to which we will be going through them.

One of the first characters in this game that also hits with this theme is Commander Kamado. Throughout the game it is specifically described as to how his character game to be. His home in Kanto was destroyed by wild pokemon, to which he and the other villagers had to immigrate to Hisui. Upon landing at Prelude Beach, they build Jubilife Village, a haven with large protective gates and guards always on patrol, ensuring security. It's their home, and Kamado repeatedly tells you throughout the game how he's determined to build a home for the village and himself. Even when the skies turn blood red and he banishes you into the wilds, he's determined to fight tooth and nail to protect his home.

This is one of the more obvious examples. Kamado has no home to return to. But in doing so with perseverance, he creates a new one. Even though Hisui is quite different from his old home in Kanto, he does settle with creating a new home, one that is safe, prospering, and peaceful. But when his home is threatened, he does not go back down to protect it.

A home is something you build.

Another similar example of this is the dynamic of Adaman and Irida. Their clans too migrated from other lands to Hisui, eventually settling on the land and living with the local pokemon. From their eyes, a home is something you must share and work together with. Even though they both warred over their patron gods, both the young clan leaders are determined to create a home that is peaceful and without bloodshed between them. However since this is the age of religious folks, insulting one's household deity is also akin to insulting one's home.

To some, a god is a home.

Later in the game we also encounter Lady Cogita. She like most, has no home. While Hisui is the land she has lived in for many years, her original home is long lost to time. As one of the Celestica, all of her people and culture have long disappeared, her god gone, and her old home now reduced to ruins scattered across the land. While she does reside in the Ancient Retreat, was it ever truly her home? That given her long life, does she ever miss the home she once had, and still vividly remembers? Is a home a home if you have no one to share it with? Does she ever feel homesick for her god that no longer answers her? She is a character with many mysteries to her, but you can't help but wonder what burdens could be going through her mind. The deities of time and space may have created the land, but is it the same as creating a home?

And most of all we cannot forget Volo. Your rival, nemesis, and literary foil. Unlike the others, he has no home, but has no home to return to either. Like Cogita, he too has lost all of his Celestica roots. However unlike Cogita, it's unknown whether he actually knows what their home was like before. Since we don't know canonically if Volo was alive at the same time as Cogita, we can assume he came long after the ruin of the Celestica, as he regularly questions her on the myths and traditions of a culture he isn't familiar with. He is a character that was born without a home, and tries desperately to pick up its pieces by ancient stories and writings on ruin walls. He also desperately yearns for his household god, as Arceus has long disappeared in the eyes of the world along with the Celestica.

Volo, as a character, is defined by his homesickness.

However unlike the hero, Volo refuses to accept Hisui as his home. As we all know at the end of the game when Volo reveals his true colors, he mentions that he wishes to subjugate Arceus to create a new world. In a desperate attempt to create a home he can finally accept, his wish is to create one with the powers of his god, and have pain and suffering be long-forgotten concepts. What makes Volo the villain in this scenario however, is that in order to complete this goal, it will destroy the homes of everyone else. In a grand act of selfishness, Volo is willing to destroy the homes of others in order to create his own. A home is something he is willing to destroy.

Overall throughout the game, the theme of what makes a "home" is repeated. Whether it be characters losing their home, characters trying to build a home, or characters trying to simply find a home. And as you play the game, the world around the hero changes. As humans and pokemon start to work together, their lives and homes start to become intertwined, creating a new life for everyone around them.

All lives touch other lives to create something anew and alive. That is a home.

[peaterookie]

Trials and Tribulations of Scanning: Lupin III Manga

Hi!

It's been a while since I've made a proper Lupin essay, and this one is going to be a bit different from all the ones I've done too.

Throughout the years in the manga community, I've gotten very accustomed to the process of scanning and archiving this series, it's something that I sincerely do enjoy doing so I wanna just dedicate a post talking about it and also bring attention a huge project of mine.

Disclaimer that this isn't really gonna be a comphrehensive history with a bunch of details about the scanning process done on the series before I entered the fandom, I just wanna talk about certain parts that I think are worth writing and my experiences doing it myself.

Okay this intro's gotten long enough let's get started.

Let's talk about the tokyopop scans of the OG manga and HOW SHIT IT IS.

Oh poor og manga... you were doomed from the start from the moment you were uploaded publically. Because who the hell is going to want to read something that looks like this???

An important step when I scan my pages is cleaning, it is the process where you take the initial scans, which I call raws, and polish them to make it prettier. When you see the scans of the og manga, it is very very clear that the person did not bother to clean any of these at all.

The coloration of the pages (which should not have been there at all if they decided to scan in grayscale) gives it an unpleasant old vibe, and should have been editted to turn into something more black and white.

I honestly do not understand why anyone would just leave a page this bad and assume that people would be fine reading something that looks like this. I am very convinced that the quality detered some people from checking the manga out any further because at its worst, it's unreadable and the details of the art is hard to decipher.

It's very easy too!! I can easily take this place and edit it on my phone to turn it into...

This!

Ain't that much better already. and it only took me a minute to do just that, imagine just how better the rest of the scans would've been if the person gave a bit more effort to clean their pages?

One of the many things i've learned is that when you do something for a community, whatever you put out might stay there forever and become a permanent impact on the people using your product, so it's important to make it look good!!!

What is good about the OG manga + new adventures though is that there exists high quality scans of it, just in japanese. So while there is still no good scans of the english version, people can always find a better alternative elsewhere.

Shin Lupin III though... is a different story.

(insert cool transition here or something)

Here is what I really wanted to talk about.

Shin Lupin III, literally. has. no. good scans. It's all shit. You get trash or garbage and that is it.

"But Peater! What about the Tokyopop scans! They're pretty good right?"

You're absolutely correct! Until you realize that Tokyopop did not fully translate Shin Lupin III, leaving approximately 100 chapters worth of manga in horrible quality 😂😂😂

Those missing parts are the ultimate problem, and the guy that is now in charge of translating the rest of Shin Lupin, Oranges, does not do the scanning justice (the one above.)

I do not know what kind of source he uses, but it is absolute horseshit, and again, he doesn't seem to bother with editting them to make them look better. I'll just provide more examples, to really emphasize how horrible it looks. You can barely see what's going on with some of them.

Someone pointed a flashlight while scanning this

(Editor's Note: So it seems like Oranges did the bare minimum and fixed the scans on the San Francisco arc so he is slightly forgiven)

And what the Japanese scans? Hahaha, it gets worse.

From an simple look at it, you might be tricked into thinking that this is a good scan! has nice lighting, black ink, BUT THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE WRONG.

Look closer. The lineart is melding into each other, the cross hatching is blurred, the kanji is barely readable.

This is the works of an Al upscaling tool.

AND THEY DID THIS, FOR EVERY SINGLE PAGE! THEY LURE YOU INTO A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY LIKE "omg!! san francisco scans!!" AND THIS IS WHEN THEY TRAP YOU INTO A MELTING POT OF AI SHIT TO NEVER BE ABLE TO HAVE GOOD SHIN LUPIN SCANS EVER AGAIN AND AM SICK OF IT!$_+$(2!(_(!_(+7(0#+#?@!

And so that's why I'm going to be doing something about it!

My project for this year is to rescan Shin Lupin III in higher quality. No AI upscaling involved, everything will be done by hand. Here are the previous panels again but scanned by me!!

See the differences now!! This is what happens when someone puts effort on their scans!! wowwwww

I've already finished scanning the raws for every single page, and now it is only time to clean them.

When will I finish this? I can't tell you, but I promise that it will be done and released before the year ends. I hope you guys are looking forward to this!!

Darn, I actually didn't get to talk much about my process and how i got into scanning huh? Maybe some other time if people are interested.

But for now, goodbye, and thanks for reading!!

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA if I refuse to do anymore work on the group project we already missed the deadline for, but can still submit?

I am extremely tired of being walked over and doing all the work. I'm a 3rd year uni student and multiple times I've been the main person doing group project work. The latest example is what prompted this ask. Our task was to do a discussion and then write an essay based on it, the group consists of 4 people including me. We talked for 10 minutes at the end of last week and a little bit yesterday. We did the majority of the work yesterday as well.

There are 14 points/questions we need to cover. Multiple people not only are advised to, but must cover the same questions so there's substance to be worked with. While the rest of the group covered some, it's insufficient and I did the majority of the work on the first half of the questions and all of the second half. A worked on 4/14 questions (pretty short answers), B also did 4/14 questions (one longer answer, three pretty short answers), C wrote 2.5/14 questions (2 medium length answers, one single sentence answer) and D, me, did 11/14 (mainly long answers with a couple of shorter ones).

After I made a Google Doc to make communication easier, they submitted their answers and basically ghosted me. I asked multiple times for help but was met with silence or jokes about checking the grammar and typos later for me. Again, we don't have enough substances to work with, the essay CANNOT be completed with what we have so far.

And here's where the issues get deeper. I asked for someone to at least look at what I've written down so far multiple times, proofread it if you will. Silence. I know for a fact A and C were FREE and could've continued working on the project, while B might or might not have been at work. Finally C said they'll do it. We were left with less than an hour to wrap it up and submit it before the deadline at this point.

2 minutes after saying that they'll read it, they sent me a "it's great" message. They shameless lied to my face.

I was inside the Doc the whole time and no other users were shown to be viewing the page, let alone reading 3 lengthy paragraphs in 2 minutes.

At some point during the day I was so desperate, I was ready to delete all I've written, comments, intro and first few paragraphs of the essay, everything and beg to join a different group. But a friend managed to calm me down and I didn't go that route.

I can't write to the professor and explain the situation to him, it's just not an option, that's not a practice in my country when the subject only consists of lectures and the professor has to look after 100+ students. My last hope is tomorrow morning those 3 will see the newest messages of me asking for help to finish it and will help me. If that doesn't happen, well...

What I can do is say fuck it and give them the same treatment they've given me – ghost them, don't do additional work on the questions and essay and take all of us down for not finishing and submitting the final project. I don't really want to do it and fuck up our grades (we have no idea how important this homework is for the final grade) but I genuinely see no other way. So WIBTA?

What are these acronyms?

[transmutationisms]

hi! do you have a recommendation of how to begin reading foucault (if possible, within a timeframe of 1-2 months as it’s for an upcoming exam)? i’ve picked up the foucault reader and it’s not… entirely incomprehensible, but i’m definitely struggling and would like to know how to follow it better.

thank you so much!

hm, it depends on what specifically your exam is on and what your background is. i don't think it's necessary to read all of foucault in order to understand any given text of his, but, i obviously don't know what you expect your exam to cover. for example, to understand the methodology he advocated (tho used mostly unsuccessfully) i would say to prioritise the "what is enlightenment" essay in the volume you already have; the key passages of the archaeology of knowledge; the essay "nietzsche, genealogy, history"; and at least the section intros of the order of things. or, if you're more looking into his understanding of power and politics, you might glance at discipline and punish, and then his key course lectures between about 1975 and 79. madness and civ, birth of the clinic, and history of sexuality are more applied uses of the methodology, and of the three i think birth of the clinic is the best scholarship and still pretty flawed. again though, i don't know what you'll need to know.

i would also say, when you find yourself getting confused, try to narrow down why that's happening if it's not getting better after a few days. i'm always a proponent of the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy as a guidebook, and secondary literature in general can help you figure out what you're looking for, how foucault used his terminology, &c

[canmom]

what's the book for? part 1

[here's an intro where I talk about the three hour video essay that inspired me to do this]

This is a part of a series about TTRPGs! I'm looking at the relationship between the book and the thing you do, the play.

That forum, the 'Forge', was founded on the premise that, in Edwards's pithy slogan, 'System Does Matter' - which is to say Edwards believed that the formal and, perhaps especially, informal procedures you follow when you play a roleplaying game have a large effect on what kind of experiences you can have there. Kind of tautological, but I'll let him have that. It is true that there are many different activities that fall under the heading of 'tabletop roleplaying'.

Edwards and his pals wanted to have a more explicit and intentional 'creative agenda' when playing a game. In general this is something that the players were supposed to get on the same page about when they sit down to play a game. To the Forge mindset, the ideal is for everyone to be pushing harmoniously to the same thing; the root of 'dysfunction' in TTRPGs was seen as arising from an unacknowledged clash of these agendas.

The solution found by the Forge was to design new game systems which put their preferred agenda, 'narrativism', front and centre.

Many more words could be written about the Forge, a lot of them quite mean, but let's bring this back to game design. What is it good for?

Why do we buy all these books anyway?

What is 'an RPG'? On the shelf to my right are... hold on let me count... some 27 different D&D books, mostly from 3.5e. Also a couple other TTRPG books (including Apocalypse World). On my hard drive are... some 94+ other games accumulated from various Humble Bundles and similar. I have played only a small fraction, and honestly, read only a slightly larger fraction.

What is a 'game' in this context? Generally speaking there's a book, and maybe some other tools like character sheets, which theoretically provide what you need to get together with some friends and do an activity that it defines. Sort of like a recipe. But the book itself is not the game; the book anchors the game, which is something rather nebulous, into a thing that can be bought and sold. The game is an activity, which 'exists' when it gets played. However, consulting the book is (usually) part of the game!

I rather vaguely say 'what you need', because it's more than just 'rules'. Lancer, for example, is full of colourful, vivid pictures of giant robots; these pictures do a lot to get players' imaginations thinking about what sort of giant robot they might pilot - how cool it would look and what sort of sicknasty shit it would do. I doubt Lancer would be even a fraction as popular if it didn't have these artworks to get you on board with its fantasy. The pictures are a very load-bearing part of creating the 'game' here.

We could say the aim of the TTRPG book is to convince you that the game "exists" in a concrete enough way that you can actually play it. Much like the Golden Witch, BEATRICE. Then you can gather your friends and say, 'hey, do you want to play Sagas of the Icelanders', and they will say 'yeah, what's that?', and you'll show them the book and sit down and attempt to follow whatever idea the book has imparted of 'how to play Sagas of the Icelanders'.

So, the relationship between TTRPG book and play is rather nebulous. This is something of a problem if you are an aspiring auteur designer who would like to impart something specific to players. Who knows what they're going to do with that book?

let's talk D&D - on the 'proper' way of playing the game

D&D is the oldest roleplaying game, and still by far the biggest. Many TTRPG players will only ever play D&D. Many others will play games derived from some version of D&D, like all the different games belonging to the 'OSR'. It's a point of endless frustration for indie game players, who have to deal with being a satellite to this juggernaut, which they see as poorly designed. If only these players would recognise how could they could have it!

But the interesting thing about D&D - and TTRPGs in general, really - to me is that it's folklore. It's not a product you buy.

How do you learn to play D&D? You could go and buy the 'core set': the famous Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide, a tripartite division that has existed since the days of AD&D. However, for all their glossy art and flavour text, these books still do a pretty dire job of actually getting you up to speed on how the game is played, especially for the Dungeon Master.

No, what you actually do is: you join an existing D&D group. Or, in the modern day, maybe you listen to an 'actual play' podcast such as Critical Role. This furnishes you with a direct example of what D&D players say and how that results in a story, far more vividly and concretely than you'd ever get from looking at a book.

Once you're convinced that you wanna join this weird little subculture, then perhaps you go and grab some books, run a published module, create a character, whatever. Maybe you go on D&D forums and read endless arguments about the best way to play the game, which all the while serve to define what that game actually is in your head.

A lot of critics of D&D complain that the rules of D&D as written do a pretty terrible job of facilitating many of the purposes that D&D is put towards. They tend to argue that there are games better suited to it, often from the story-games milieu. If people say 'sure, but we change the games in x, y and z way', this is seen as a bit of a joke - "well you're not really playing D&D at that point, are you?"

If you view 'D&D' as defined by what's printed in the books printed by Hasbro, sure. However, D&D is not really that. D&D is the label we apply to a huge nebulous body of lore, from the Dread Gazebo and Tucker's Kobolds to weirdly endearing monsters derived from knockoff tokusatsu figurines. It is all the ideas you've received about what it looks like to play D&D from listening to a podcast. It's arguing about what Chaotic Neutral means. It is 50 years of material - of frequently dubious quality, mind you! - that exploded out from that time some nerds in the States decided to explore a dungeon in their wargame.

If whoever had the rights to use the Dungeons & Dragons trademark never printed another book, that would not kill D&D. In fact, there's even a condescending nickname, courtesy of Edwards, for people who cook up their own slightly-different spin on D&D and try to sell it - the 'fantasy heartbreaker'. The concept of D&D has considerable inertia.

It's pretty, but is it D&D?

In this perspective, defining what D&D 'is' with a strict demarcation is kinda impossible. Gygax himself was very inconsistent on this front, favouring strict adherence to rules at times (declaring of houseruled games that 'such games are not D&D or AD&D games - they are something else'), and encouraging changing them at others - rather depending on whether he had the rights at the time, and his conflict with Dave Arneson.

"Since the game is the sole property of TSR and its designer, what is official and what is not has meaning if one plays the game. Serious players will only accept official material, for they play the game rather than playing at it, as do those who enjoy "house rules" poker, or who push pawns around the chess board. No power on earth can dictate that gamers not add spurious rules and material to either the D&D or AD&D game systems, but likewise no claim to playing either game can then be made. Such games are not D&D or AD&D games- they are something else, classifiable only under the generic "FRPG" catch all"

In this he sounds rather a lot like Ron Edwards declaring that only his perfect design is the true and correct version of Sorcerer! And to both these fellows, we should say, who gives a shit.

So at this point, beyond the (so far) 11 'official' versions of the books published by TSR and later Hasbro, there are hundreds of offshoots that bear a heavy amount of D&D in their lineage and function almost identically even if they don't bear the trademark... and an uncountable number of small variants, whether explicitly houseruled or just different habits forming from 'who speaks when' or 'what rules we ignore' to the focus of the game.

So. Imagine a person who was inspired by the D&D milieu, gradually figured out their own taste of what they like to see in a TTRPG over many games of 'D&D', and is now having a good time playing a game of 'D&D' about tense feudal politicking, even though they almost never look at a D&D sourcebook and frequently defy the rules printed in there. Is this person 'playing D&D'?

How about someone playing an OSR game derived from early D&D, that can't legally use the D&D trademark, but still uses THAC0 and maybe the occasional Mind Flayer(R)?

Now let's try someone who read Apocalypse World sometime and got inspired to try DMing in its style - asking players leading questions, acting to separate them, applying a cost to a desired thing or rearranging things behind the scenes when a roll goes bad... but they still consider what they're doing to be D&D, and they're strictly speaking playing by the book? After all, D&D doesn't say a thing about whether you should do that stuff or not.

Bit of a tough question imo! Maybe we should call Wittgenstein.

the scope of the book

There are so many different kinds of TTRPG book.

Some are very specific - a game like Lady Blackbird, The King is Dead or Hot Guys Making Out overlaps heavily with something like an adventure, giving you just one very tightly defined scenario and mechanics that only make sense in that context. This isn't a new thing, either - a game like Paranoia (1984-) is designed with a specific game structure in mind, where the characters each have a variety of explicit and secret objectives that are all at odds with each other.

D&D was originally a game like this, though it didn't last long. The earliest editions of the rules instruct the referee to draw out 'at least half a dozen maps of his "underworld"' filled with monsters and treasure, representing a "huge ruined pile, a vast castle built by generations of mad wizards and insane geniuses". As far as I understand the history of the hobby, though, people almost immediately started getting into character and using the game for other things than exploring a dungeon.

Other game-products leave larger gaps to be filled in by the player...

a game like Shadowrun or Eclipse Phase, or D&D settings like Dark Sun or Eberron, will give you huge amounts of information about its setting, but leave 'what you do it in' to the GM's discretion.

a game like D&D gives you various setting elements, and there are many adventures and modules you can elect to 'run', but it is the GM's task to pick and choose some subset of those pieces and build them into a custom setting for that game.

a game like Apocalypse World gives you quite explicit instructions for how to set up a first session, and works very hard to set a vibe with the many examples and general style of its rules, but it tells you next to nothing about a predefined setting.

a game like Fiasco or Microscope offers only a loose structure, that your job is to fill with content over the course of the game.

All of these games market themselves with the same type of promise: with our book, you will be able to have this kind of experience. Like all marketing, they will tend to overpromise! But the marketing is, vexingly, itself part of what makes 'the game' happen.

In the video, Vi Huntsman roughly argues that this marketing is the core of what Root: The RPG is actually doing, trying to sell you on Forge ideology rather than provide anything helpful for running a tabletop game; and that the way it attempts to provide this experience is through crude 'buttons' which are inherently limiting, belonging more to the mechanistic worlds of computer games or board games than TTRPGs.

I kind of agree, but the problem is that... to some extent every game does this exact kind of marketing. For example, here's the Bubblegum Crisis RPG (yes, there was a Bubblegum Crisis RPG, published by Mike Pondsmith's company R Talsorian Games in 1996) which announces:

Those words are lyrics from several songs from the Bubblegum Crisis soundtracks, and they encapsulate the kind of action and drama you'll find in the Bubblegum Crisis Boleplaying Game. With this book, you'll enter the world of MegaTokyo and the oppressive megacorporation Genom—a world where monstrous Boomers, desperate AD Police and the mysterious Knight Sabers battle for the future of civilization.

This copy serves as a promise of what the game will bring, but also a prompt that tells you what kind of game you should use its tools to make. It's attached to exactly the sort of licensed game that Vi Huntsman criticises, applying an existing framework to a licensed RP as if to imply you need this book in order to tell a Bubblegum Crisis-inspired story.

Why? Huntsman called it 'reproducibility'. If every game that ever runs is a uniquely circumstantial snowflake, there is nothing to sell. But if you can offer someone the tools that they surely need to do that thing they heard about...

The problem is that what makes an RPG memorable is something that arises when you get a group of friends (or strangers!) to sit down together and make up a story, and that kind of definitionally can't be reduced to instructions in a book - it's too personal, too specific to the people involved. But we live in the era of capitalism, so... RPG companies and independent designers alike need to have a product to sell to this 'RPG player' subculture-identity.

The drive to somehow make reproducible experiences dates back all the way to the very first time people heard about that crazy game that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson were doing at their wargames club and Gygax and Arneson decided to print a book to help people do that at home.

And with many RPGs on the market, they need further to differentiate themselves: to tell you that they're offering something you can't get elsewhere.

So what is that something? In the next post I'll get into that!

[golvio]

The whole video was about people who fucking hate writing essays trying to make a living writing video essays, building up their reputation as “essayists.”

When I heard the imitative writing style, I immediately was reminded of certain times when I was back in school, where teachers giving tips on essay writing would give examples of students who’d start their intro paragraph with a copy/paste of a cited Webster’s Dictionary definition of a word that came up in the book they were analyzing.

While they’d technically cited it correctly, they spent more time regurgitating the dictionary definition than actually setting up the thesis statement that should’ve been the backbone of their essay. They hated having to think about what they’d read and weren’t confident enough in their own ideas or opinions to properly own them, so instead they’d hide behind a more legitimate and official sounding source.

Yes, Billy, we know what the definition of “nostalgia” is. We all had to look it up the first day the teacher said it during our class discussion about the relationship between Daisy and Gatsby. But what does that word mean in the context of The Great Gatsby? Most importantly, what does this word mean to you now that you’ve finished the book and had some time to think about the story and how Fitzgerald’s descriptions made you feel about each character? Don’t you have any opinions of your own that you at least want to try phoning in a defense for in exchange for a grade?

It betrays not only not giving a shit about the subject matter or what skills the course is trying to teach you—it betrays you not considering your own thoughts and feelings worth giving a shit about.

Look, I get essay writing is hard. I struggled with essays immensely and dreaded them until something finally clicked during my junior year of high school. And yet…these people aren’t students who still have time to learn better. They’re grown-ass adults trying to make a career out of a medium they can’t stand and have no genuine respect for solely because they can get ad revenue from the nerds who actually enjoy this stuff. The most passion and original thought they’ve ever put into their work is when they frantically tried to cover their own asses for rehashing quotations from original sources instead of bothering to put any meat on their essays!

What a miserable existence! Why spend your life lying about something you don’t love even if the money’s good? I’d rather be shat upon for my own words and work than spend the rest of my life trying to bullshit the disciplinary committee.

[kalisseo]

idk if it's my tophabe shipper heart but I genuinely think it would be weird for Topher liking Joan and not Abe...

like, they put ZERO effort into making it feel like a real crush,also it was such an un serious moment... and other romantic relationship in clone high had hints

for example, joanfk, in s2 the few moments they interacted before the prom thing jfk showed interest in her

with kahlopatra they had the intro scene, and in ep 7 they became friends, so it wasn't a surprise at all when they liked each other

and with the s3 trailer, EVEN JOAN AND CONFUCIUS HAD A LITTLE HINT FOR THEM BEING A COUPLE IN THE S2 POSTER, because Confucius is looking at Joan, and i think that was on purpose because Joan and jfk are looking at each other, and Harriet is looking at jfk and hugging him, and yeah they kissed in ep 5 and had a romantic sub plot in ep 6 so I think that the poster has a meaning

so they made all that and then... nothing with Topher and Joan?? like the only hint is Topher looking at Joan in the new poster, but there's also a frame with abe where he does the exact same face so....

AND THERE'S MORE PROOF OF TOPHER LIKING ABE AND NOT JOAN !!!!!!

honestly i have a lot to say, maybe I'll make a more complete post

also thinking if I should make a whole video essay about topher and clone high in general.....

[alchemicaladarna]

Just to clarify, I am obviously talking about the characters and the QSMP as a story. I am simply an avid viewer that had too much coffee and time on their hands so I basically wrote an essay. What is it about? I have no idea. So, read it if you want, but beware that nothing at the end of this should make sense.

In my opinion, morally ambigious characters are interesting, but UNPREDICTABLE morally ambigious characters are even more fun to analyze because they take more risks and play more dangerous games. If a character was labeled as a "hero" and played on the "good" side they are guaranteed a safe spot within the group. Regardless of whether they kill or hurt others, they are on the good side because they are fighting against the corporation that is keeping them and their friends trapped in a place that is a nightmarish paradise. If they had done actions that worked against the islanders' favor, by, for example nearly getting everyone killed by explosives at a party they are justifiably labelled a villian. But what if a character played in the middle? What if they were neutral? What if they simply wanted to let things play out- sticking to the sidelines and only becoming involved when the situation benifits their entertainment?

So, pardon me for the long intro, but here's the gist folks: q!Foolish arrested q!Pac e q!Mike and unknowingly put them through loads of emotional trauma that I don't think they'll be recovering from any time soon, for fun. To a person with a normal moral compass, that's obviously fucked up.

"Friends don't send friends to prison."

In q!Foolish's perspective, he REALLY didn't think the consequences of his actions through, but he wouldn't have arrested q!Pac e q!Mike for no reason. Mr. Mustard is missing and the Federation told q!Foolish that q!Pac e q!Mike were responsible for his disappearance. At this point, I think enough time has passed that we the audience know q!Foolish is being manipulated by the Federation. Even Foolish himself knows he's being manipulated by them, yet he still partakes in this precarious game because it's simply more entertaining than just sitting on the good side and letting things play out.

Q!Foolish has never actively gone out of his way to hurt people on purpose. Does he lack some emotional maturity and the appropriate response to some situations? Yes he does; but he doesn't have malicious intentions. He's there to have fun. Where others see a dire situation- at the mercy of the inescapable claws of a malevolent corporate entity, q!Foolish sees fun and exciting opportunities. The others might not want to admit it, but aside from the tragedies and kidnappings that have occured on the island, this nightmarish paradise has provided the characters with more excitement and enjoyment, than what is worth.

But, not everyone understands q!Foolish's perspective, and that's good! That's ok! But what I'm perplexed about is their constant unjust treatment of him- the exclusion, threats, torture, many many pointless accusations disguised as interrogations, etc- simply because he did one task for the Federation. One task that affected the lives of two people, but in the end both parties communicated and forgave each other anyways. One task that required q!Foolish, and by extension, q!Jaiden to harmlessly investigate around q!Pac and q!Mike's base for a considerably long time before finding nothing that would incriminate the duo. Throughout q!Foolish's endeavour, working with the Federation cost him most of his friends' trust and gave him no benifits, but he still reluctantly chooses to carry out another task because it's entertaining. But like q!Foolish said to q!Cellbit the other day, he may be stupid, but he's certainly not an idiot, and he has limits. A lot of people, specifically q!Max don't seem to understand the concept of a neutral party. If you work for the Federation, you are a villain- and honestly, that's a fair assumption considering their reputation. But what about people like q!Jaiden? Q!Jaiden, one of the kindest people on the island, who is compassionate to everyone, even Cucurucho, who is always perceived as a malicious entity?

What exactly defines a villain in this story? In my opinion, everyone on the island has a skewed sense of morality. Everyone except Elquackity knew of his first assasination and simply watched as he lost his first life, then celebrated when he lost the other with no regards to the repurcussions of their actions or how Elq felt about all this. And while we can justify their actions because Elq hurt people before, and either brainwashed or replaced q!Quackity, how do we justify their treatment of q!Foolish even after he communicated honestly to q!Pac e q!Mike and done nothing to deserve their maltreatment of him. Maybe I'm a bit impatient, but at this point, q!Foolish's arrest, has had the same value and impact as q!Bad giving people the survey for the Federation; I'm even more willing to believe that q!Cellbit's accidental "employee of the month" investigations benifitted the Federation more than whatever measly and repititive tasks they're giving out to q!Foolish.

So, what warrants all this hate and injustice towards q!Foolish then if he's not harming anyone? Why is he the punching bag? Why is he the butt if the joke Every Single Time? What warranted all the cruel jokes and malicious beatings after the Nether event? Is it because they know he won't exact revenge upon them? Is it because, in their eyes, they only value him as a court jester and nothing more? Q!Foolish even said the Nether, an obsolete dimension of fire and brimstone, offered more compassion and comfort than a world where the sun shone and the air was less polluted because the inhabitants, his "friends" treated him with more malevolence than literal souless monsters from hell itself.

Think about q!Jaiden- a person whose compassion broke through Cucurucho's souless programming and gave it a home, a sense of safety, and relaxation. Jaiden works (and apparently worked???) with the Federation, yet she has more kindness within her than an entire group of people, on the "good" side, fighting against evil.

The truth is, there is no bad side among the islanders. The admins (meta) wrote the Federation (and codes?) as entities that the collective group should be against- a common enemy. But once you "ally" yourself with the Federation and do tasks for them does that make you the common enemy as well, or do you need to commit more heinious acts to be considered a villain?

And what about the islanders? At what point do the rest of the players begin to consider a character on the wrong side of things? At what point do they begin to abandon compassion in favor of searching for the truth? How far will they go in pursuit of the truth?

In my opinion, there are no villains in the story because everyone is capable of becoming an antagonist in one way or another. Basically, EVERYONE is morally ambiqious because they have all been antagonists to each other at some point in the tale, and as the story keeps unfolding, who knows what could happen? A character might say they are a good person, but as the story changes, so do their values, their morals, their limits. How thin can someone's patience be before it inevitably snaps?

[familyabolisher]

hi! im new to theory, as in (imo) hard, non-fiction books. when reading some, i realise I lose track of the points inside the book, so recently I have been (attempting) to make notes. however, im a complete amateur, and I don't know exactly how to. back in school, i used to just skim these type of books finding whatever was 'useful' ie. relevant to my assignment/essay/class discussion and would simply dismiss the rest. i dunno if it's just me but I feel like these books are overwhelmingly packed with information - and useful information at that! do you have any tips to organise points mentioned in these books without getting bogged down on details/focus shifting on one line of thinking? if not, it's completely fine. love your blog, and have a great day!

hey! i actually think the best thing you can do is to keep taking notes as you go, because in my experience that's the best way to keep track of information and the best way to identify discrepancies in the text. obviously this can make reading nonfiction a bit of a slog, but ime it's a lot better to have a thorough critical position on a handful of texts than to have skim-read and half-absorbed a lot of them; if you're reading in around the same subject area, it's also pretty likely that you'll gain greater familiarity with texts/scholars/arguments/points of reference over time, such that you won't need to keep writing down Every Little Thing.

i find that the best way to take notes is to identify the key argument(s) in a particular section and to break down the evidence being used to substantiate those arguments. so my notes often look something like:

[ARGUMENT]

sub-argument/supporting evidence

sub-argument/supporting evidence

sub-argument/supporting evidence

and so on. kind of like trying to reverse-engineer the essay/chapter plan that the author was working with.

imo, if you're just looking to get the gist of an argument, it's actually fine to just read the introduction and conclusion to a text. obviously this is not always the case, and if you're looking to seriously posit a position on one particular text then you ought to read the whole thing, but there's a lot of theoretical work which tends to set out the significant points of its argument(s) in the intro + conclusion and use the main body of text for detailing examples + evidence. in my experience, the best subject to get away with this in is lit theory - a lot of the central body of lit theory will be detailing application of the theoretical framework laid out at the start, which, whilst obviously helpful (in the same way that all explanatory/evidentiary content is obviously helpful), probably won't do much for you beyond giving you a greater sense of how applicable the theoretical framework in question actually is.

another way to make the process a little easier + more engaging for you could be to think about the sorts of questions you want to ask about the text in question. some of those could be:

what are my expectations for this text? what do i already know about this subject matter & the scholarship surrounding it, and how might i expect this text to respond to that?

what key things do i think a text of this nature must identify in order for me to consider it credible?

what am i looking to get out of this text? what am i interested in? what am i hoping it might clarify?

i think approaching nonfiction with a significant sense of a) what you might expect it to argue (and of course, a willingness to be proven wrong) and b) what you want to get out of it can be helpful in identifying which parts of it you want to prioritise. imo, it's better to think of nonfiction/theory texts as something you are engaging with to the ends of formulating a critical response, rather than a wall of information that you have to take in. hopefully this kind of approach lets you circumvent that concern about focus shifting - it still requires that you look at and think about everything, but the way in which you think about it & the material you deem helpful in articulating the response to the text ought to change a little.

i completely feel you though lol i find it incredibly difficult to keep track of information + arguments if i don't write it all down and i still don't 100% trust my opinions on nonfiction texts after the fact if i don't think i was thorough enough with my reading. i tried to read a physical copy of g. aloysius' nationalism without a nation in india the other month & whilst it was clearly so helpful & so thorough, i had to give up because i couldn't find a pdf online and i can't really take notes from physical copies. it's annoying but, like. it works!

[aplpaca]

I just think everyone should be aware that the definition of Species as being "group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring" as is often given in biology classes is super oversimplified and also kinda hand-wavy.

Like the example given a lot of times is the fact that horses and donkeys can make mules, but mules are infertile, therefore horses and donkeys are different species. But like one), this entirely ignores the fuckery plants can do while still being considered different species scientifically, and 2) this also ignored that a lot of animals considered to be different species can and do produce fertile offspring. In fact, it may be *more* common for hybrids to be fertile than not.

It's hard to concretely and succinctly Define what gets considered to be separate species, because while genetic compatibility obv plays an important role (for example, lions and house cats are def separate) other things are also considered such as habitat, behavior, appearance, and frequency of hybrids in the wild if present (even if said hybrids are fertile).

For example: wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs can all interbreed and create fertile offspring. But the three groups *in general* have different habitats, behaviors, and appearances, occupy different ecological niches, and non-manmade hybrids are far less frequent than offspring with both parents being from a single group. So while the edges can and do bleed together (esp historically for coyotes in the eastern US), it's more accurate and convenient to treat them as different groups that gave overlap than as a single overaching group with very different subsets.

Anyway this started as an intro for me to give an example of a cool hybrid and kinda turned into its own mini essay explanation but anyway there's a recorded instance of a female Common Black Hawk and a male Red-shouldered Hawk successfully mating and raising young in California in 2014 and the baby looked like a cool little goth guy

Common Black Hawk vs Red-Shouldered Hawk:

The pair doing courtship flights and hanging out at their nest:

(huge goth girlfriend + smaller orange guy)

Their offspring:

Also there's been sightings of other birds thought to be Common Black Hawk/Red-shouldered Hawk hybrids (at least 400 cedible sightings on ebird, though its unclear how many are the same individual(s) seen by different people), though it hasn't been 100% confirmed due to not having genetic samples and only seeing the adult birds and not its parents. The ones in these pics are adults, while the offspring in the above pic is a juvenile, which is why they look so different

Also here's a potential hybrid at its nest with its partner, a non-hybrid Red-shouldered Hawk

Ebird link

[lazytitans-world]

I have written a near high school/college level essay discussing the production of wish/figuring out where in production Starboy officially got canned but in order to finish it I have to wait to buy Wish on blu ray to watch it again, 1) to see if my thoughts and feelings on it have changed and 2) to see if a starboy and Asha romance could’ve worked in the movie we gotten and if so I will do a punch up to wish adding in the love story.

I also need to watch 2 more deleted scenes that aren’t available online yet as the head of story goes over changes and why the scenes were scrapped.

I’ve gone deep down the rabbit hole of this production and while I don’t think much will surprise those in the know, those with an intro knowledge of wish will be surprised by how much this movie changed throughout production. For example, the song titled “This Wish” as actually titled “More for Us” when it debuted in 2022 at a Disney fan convention in Anaheim a year before the movie released. And that change happened a year before the movie was even out, there’s a lot that went on behind the scenes that shows how all over the map this movie was and I hope this sheds light or gives closure to those looking for answers.