#one of my central takeaways of which has long been

[paradife-loft]

it occurs to me that part of this "chatgpt will make up nonexistent articles and quotes and whatnot and then attribute them to real people" issue - I suspect it has something to do with "referencing and citing Actual Things In the World where appropriate" and "not plagiarizing existing writing" being two goals at cross-purposes for training a program on like, general writing I guess? - when it doesn't already have a background of understanding the difference between "real" and "fake".

like, you have something that understands "here are strings of text! I know a lot about how parts of these strings tend to get put together to form larger blocks of text. I also know that it's important to make sure I don't arrange those blocks or strings of text in ways that directly match existing blocks of highly unique text in my dataset."

so like... it completely makes sense why it'd have trouble contextually with stuff like "citing real scientific article titles"? unless you put it through a much more rigorous training designed specifically to learn what (contextually) makes something an "article title" as opposed to other text, and what distinguishes "citing something [e.g. putting an exact copy of existing unique text into what it generates]" from "plagiarizing".... that's probably not a task the computer is equipped to handle.

[redpenship]

Happy New Year! I’d love to know if you have any headcanons about Mobian culture and/or holidays, either based on things you’ve seen in the games/comics/movies etc OR just stuff you’ve made up for fun. :) Maybe this isn’t really your forte but I thought I’d ask haha!

Happy new year!

I actually don't have too many headcanons on Mobian culture itself. However, I do have HCs for their society in general which I guess would feed into the culture idea anyways. I'm just going to put all of it here because why not.

(Heads up: this post is 1.8k words long).

Thesis I: There is no Mobian state.

If you've read my fic Buzzsaw Dilemma, then you'll have already been given a basic run down on how I think this works. Since I like rambling about this kind of stuff, I will explain everything again, but this time with evidence from canon to support my theory!

To begin, it's always best to define what a "state" actually is. I prefer the Max Weber view as a state being an "organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force". Let's break down what this actually means with an example:

The state establishes a rule that you can't assault other people. One day, you feel that someone has wronged you and decide to punch them in the face. A police officer nearby notices this and responds by punching you in the face and detaining you. After spending the night in jail, you're charged with felony assault and the police officer is not. Why?

As a random citizen, you do not have a right to the legitimate use of force. You cannot punch people to get what you want with impunity. The police, as official arms of the state to use against domestic populations, do have a monopoly on the use of force. They can shoot people, put them in prison, and basically do whatever they want (within reason, technically, but the state doesn't like challenges to its authority and will always resist holding itself and its officers accountable for perceived illegitimate uses of force) because they're the only ones allowed to do so! Your boss at work can't kidnap you and hold you prisoner for a year because you broke a rule. The state can do that to you because it is seen as a legitimate use of force.

Now that we both know what a state is, I can explain why I don't think one exists on the Mobian islands. I am going to cite a lot of stuff from IDW since it's allegedly canon now and the games tend not to focus too much on day-to-day life on the islands anyways.

Point one: the Restoration. Since aid organizations apparently don't like working on the islands, which I suspect might be due to the Eggman Empire's fixed presence there, the Restoration was forced to step up after the war to fix up the islands. Although it's true that some states just don't give a shit about their populations, I don't think it's wrong to say that post-war clean up would typically be a job for an existing state. The lack of any central authority points to the conclusion that one may just not exist.

Here are some panels from IDW issue #42:

Here, Zavok is surprised about the lack of security at Restoration HQ. Master Zik explains that Mobians don't see a need to prepare for violence because they aren't violent to each other. This is an interesting assertion given Tails' backstory, but I guess his two tails were just that disturbing to the people at home!

The main takeaway here is that the islands don't really have security guards or police officers. I like these panels for that reason only. I'm afraid the reasoning provided by Zik still implies that police/guards would be necessary if there was violence among Mobians, so it's not really that revolutionary of a worldbuilding moment and realigns the comic with statist ideology.

So, let's summarize: the islands don't have a central authority. They don't have any means to enforce a monopoly on the use of force. Does this mean that they don't have a state? In the absence of government, does the Restoration pave the roads?

In my general opinion, yes. There are some instances that could be used to disprove this theory, such as the Everhold Prison seen in Bad Guys, which is seemingly guarded exclusively by dog Mobians:

The existence of a prison implies a functional penal system, which in turn implies that somebody on the islands has a legitimate monopoly on force. On the other hand, it's never explicitly stated that Everhold Prison is hosted on the islands, so for now I can still cope and pretend it never happened. Yippee!

Thesis II: The islands don't use money.

I hosted a poll on this subject a few weeks ago, in which I learned that most people think there's money on the islands. Allow me to argue otherwise!

The most common theory for the origin of money is that it came into existence because bartering for stuff fucking sucks and nobody likes doing it. Nothing has a standardized value, so if the guy in your village responsible for making shoes is a pompous asshole who makes ludicrous demands such as asking for FIVE bushels of wheat in exchange for a pair of shoes, even though you've heard the guy in the next town over only asks for three bushels, then you're shit out of luck and have to fork over all your wheat. Maybe the shoemaker is on a gluten-free diet and refuses to trade with you, so as a wheat farmer who only trades in wheat now you can't even barter for a new pair of shoes! Sucks to be you, buddy.

Under a monetary system, a bushel of wheat and a pair of shoes both gain a standardized value. A bushel of wheat is $1, and a pair of shoes is $4. After selling enough wheat that you have $4 in profits, you can walk over to the shoemaker, slap some coins down on the table, and tell him to get to work. Now, you might say, "wait, if you're in a captive market, can't he just charge whatever he wants and you have to deal with it?" The answer to that question is yes, but asking economic theorists to consider greed in their theories is a bit hard since they don't really care about fairness at all and still don't understand what's wrong with kids making carpets in factories since their hands are the perfect size for that sort of thing. All these stupid labour rights activists don't understand comparative advantages and it's sickening!

Here's the problem with an existing Mobian monetary system: it assumes greed! Or, at the very least, assumes that Mobians have normalized the hoarding of commodities for personal gain. I don't believe this is the case at all.

Let's recall Zik's statement to the Zeti: Mobians don't steal from each other because they are kind and compassionate to one another. I would argue that the origins of property/commodity ownership implies large-scale theft, as developing something like an apple orchard requires dispossessing your neighbours of a plot of land and claiming it for yourself. Then you grow a ton of apples on your land--that they once could have used as they pleased before you took over--and tell them that they can't eat any of these apples unless they give you something in exchange. But the apples are right there, bro, they'll complain. You can't eat all of those on your own. You'll tell them to suck it up and eventually they'll bring you items (or money) in exchange for some apples.

This doesn't seem like something we'd see the cute Sonic furries do to each other. Since we're talking about farming, here's a panel from there IDW 2022 annual where all the characters are helping out on some kind of communal farm:

Moving on, let's look at why Sonic hates Eggman so much. Eggman has always served as a representation of industrialization, environmental exploitation and degradation, and individualist greed. If the islands had a monetary system, and the ideals required to develop one in the first place, then a lot of what Eggman is attempting to implement would have already existed! Economic development requires exploitation, both of other people and natural resources. Money is the result of economic development. It just doesn't fit for me.

Thesis III: Equity as a norm.

This is basically the section on culture. Leading up to this section, I've established a rule: Mobians live in a stateless and moneyless society. Here are some cultural norms that might have lead to such a society in modern times.

Ecology as a priority. This is consistent with the environmentalist themes in the series, but also with the way that most Mobians we meet in the series seem to really care about the environment. My personal take is that they simply haven't developed the view that they are above nature, which is something seen in Eggman and other industrialists. In Sonic Prime, we see Thorn Rose react aggressively when she notices that her friends harming plants by taking more than they need from them. This may have been because they violated a strict cultural norm! Although this occurred in an alternate dimension, I like to think about its implications for the main universe, too. Is the cultural pressure to maintain and protect the land they live on enough to suppress industrial development? Maybe!

Conformity as a means of social cohesion. Generally, I think Mobian society demands a lot of personal sacrifice from people. A core tenant of collectivism is that you have to put up with not getting what you want most of the time, and sometimes this even comes at a direct cost to you. Maybe your neighbour stole your favourite toy truck and you can't complain about it or everyone will accuse you of trying to establish private ownership over something stupid. Or, maybe, there hasn't been a lot of rain this year and your communal farms are flopping. Out of desperation one day, you wander into the woods and find some bushes of edible berries that could help you survive better for the next few days. However, since eating while your neighbours starve would violate the ethical values imposed on your by your collectivist society, you must accept only having a few berries instead and sharing the rest with your village. If you're someone like Tails, who stands out because of a physical mutation, then tough luck if your village cares about appearances. Everyone knows your business and you're dependent on them for support. As soon as they decide they don't like you, you're going to suffer severely. Upsides and downsides to everything.

Alternate methods of punishment. A society without a state likely wouldn't have prisons. Building on the concept of conformity, social crimes would be mitigated through social pressure--basically, if you do something wrong, everyone will be mean to you and not like you as much as they did before. Fear of risking the judgment of peers is a very strong deterrent for most crimes, arguably moreso than prison itself.

Everything I've written here is my basic take on Mobian culture and society! In terms of holidays, I'm sure they have stuff relating to harvest times and seasonal changes.

Thanks for the question!! Sorry if this isn't what you wanted at all haha.

[olderthannetfic]

You might get a kick out of this article someone linked me to, to try and argue that BL is in fact fetishizing (because Yada Yada women consume it and produce it and all that)

https://www.youthoutright.org/articles/fetishization-of-the-queer-community

Article is a fairly short read. But I have to chuckle at it as "evidence" since it makes a fair amount of claims with 0 sources:

That young teenage women make up a majority of fandom (and that's whose consuming/producing BL)

Straight, white women get paid more to write gay romance novels (and that these novels often feature Adonis like males with 0% body fat and no body hair; play into gender/hetero norms)

Etc.

Honestly the....article, if I can even call it that, isn't cohesive. I do find myself agreeing with its first two paragraphs...and surprisingly only the first two. However, this article spends a lot of its time focusing on fetishization of Trans bodies and chasers who go after transfolks bodies (which I'm not too familiar with this so if anyone wants to speak up on this point...)

I'm very confused by how someone could read this and think "this proves my point!"

--

Sigh.

I don't even agree with the beginning. Trashy "girl-on-girl" isn't what's making men think women exist to serve them. Society is doing that. Porn is a reflection, not a cause.

Not to mention the fact that f/f-for-dudes is astronomically common compared to shitheads pestering lesbians in bars. The latter are too common because the correct amount is 0, but just based on the numbers, a lot of dudes are capable of consuming this porn without being confused about what's fiction and what's reality.

The mass quantities of f/f-for-dudes do make it hard to find f/f-for-ladies, but this article has taken the wrong message from that. The correct takeaway is that we need better labeling and search features that are driven by the nerdy desire to categorize and not by algorithms that want to sell you stuff.

As long as het romance novels or porno movies for straight guys or bestselling thrillers or whatever are popular, they're going to drown out the algorithmic results for more niche things one is interested in.

Libraries and AO3 don't have this problem. Amazon and Youtube do.

the world of “slash fiction” (fanfiction portraying a romantic and often sexual relationship between characters from a given source) began centering gay men

Wow, article writer. So you know nothing then.

it’s been claimed that straight, white women are paid more than gay men by publishers to write gay romances

I'm honestly embarrassed for this article writer. First, most of this burgeoning field is selfpub anyway. Second, many established writers in the romance field are women, and established names will probably have a shot at better pay than new people.

Third, anyone who injects "white" like this is a moron and a wanker. If we're talking about racism in the Romance field (and boy howdy is there a lot), white gay men are no better, and men's race is just as relevant as women's. Either we're talking about race or we're not.

As it stands, this author just comes across as a misogynist piece of shit.

The overwhelming majority of these romances portray relationships between white, cis, abled men with no fat or body hair.

I have bad news for them about cis gay men's media. (Well, okay, some of that has a lot of body hair and interminable descriptions of the smell of ball sweat and stinky armpits, but still...)

Men who fit the first archetype will take the position of “top” in the numerous, inaccurate, graphic-as-possible sex scenes that are central to these stories and also appear to be central to many readers’ enjoyment.

I see we're in the usual "I, a sex-repulsed person, speak for all of humanity" mode.

People like horny art. News at 11.

These are complex issues deeply rooted in society. It’s difficult to envision mitigations and solutions. However, somewhere to begin would certainly be promoting more positive, intersectional, realistic representations of queer people and queer relationships. A vital action that can further this goal is choosing to consume media with queer representation that was created by queer people whenever possible.

Honestly, my response to this ending is:

Fuck off, you entitled git.

This uninformed little whiner is equating all kinds of unequal things. Chasers are all over the place, but they aren't the ones writing fanfic or any other amateur, personal writing. We have no right to other people's hobby time. Sure, we can vote with our feet, and we should, but this article doesn't really sound like it's advocating that: it sounds like it's crying that other people have different taste from the writer. Boo, hoo, hoo, someone I don't like got attention.

It's the usual ignorant trash.

Embarrassing.

[marciabrady]

i was tagged by @maureenoharra to list seven of my comfort films (which i'll be presenting in alphabetical order)! thank you for including me! 💕💕💕

CINDERELLA

i literally don't have words to explain how much this film means to me, how relatable it is on a personal level, how many times i've had no one and nowhere to turn to, only to be guided through every rough patch and hardship by and with this movie. ilene woods was such a gift to this word and i think her legacy is this movie. the energy and complexities she fills cinderella with, the subtle nuance to lady tremaine and all the innerworkings on her mind, the romance with the prince and the love and light the fairy godmother fills cinderella's world with after so many years of abuse and neglect and tragedy. it really does make you feel like dreams can come true and, even if you're an orphan with no one and nothing in the world, you're still capable of being seen as a person, of having nice things- of experiencing joy. i could go on for so much longer but i really do want to try to be somewhat brief with all of these entries

FATHER'S LITTLE DIVIDEND

this might be an unexpected one on my list, but just go with it. i love elizabeth taylor and spencer tracy is top of the top and of course old hollywood is an interest of mine so how could i not love this? it feels like a breath of fresh air and the way it's shot allows me to experience this family and story as though i were a resident in the neighborhood. i love how simple, yet complex it is, and how it allows me to breath and all the contributions it has to the worldbuilding. it has enough greatness to it to really be marked by old hollywood but it's also simple and hidden enough to be like an old friend you only hang out with one on one. hard to further explain its vibe, but it's like the last week of school where the future of summer is right before you- almost tangible- and the late spring air is caressing and you still have enough work where you're not overwhelmed, but have a sense of purpose and the peace is almost greater than it will be when you're actually on vacation

THE GLASS SLIPPER

while leslie isn't my cinderella, i think she plays a great character but she isn't the main draw of this film for me. i love how thoughtful the writing is and how the universe is one that's so real- no one person is all good and no one person is all bad. there's themes to it and lines that i've literally been thinking about for over ten years and still have new takeaways from every day. i think the stepsisters, particularly, have such a charm to them and i love how society functions in this film. this is one of the few cinderella adaptions where i feel like the costuming was done INCREDIBLY well and i love all the interiors and, again, i just love living in this universe and there's something about it that's just easily inhabitable to me

THE LITTLE MERMAID

this movie helps me so much when i feel like an outsider and no one will ever understand me and when i'm just alienated and think i don't have any resources or people around me that will ever be able to accept me. it makes me feel validated and allows me the ability to connect to who i truly am, despite whether or not others like those parts of me, and to not feel shame or be bad- or, concurrently, to allow myself to be that person and be seen in spite of that shame. it's also so much fun and so heartwarming and so energetic and deep and, again, really not enough good things i can say

SLEEPING BEAUTY

the connection i feel to aurora is something that could never be understated. i feel represented in a way i can't explain watching the film, seeing all of her actions and the decisions she makes and how she feels about life and the people around her and the animals and of love. the central theme of love and romance is such a fulcrum of my nature and aurora gives hope to us all who've craved for a human longing and connection that's real and warm and intimate and i love how it's given weight, instead of being mocked and sneered at the way contemporary disney movies do. the score of this movie is so many things and kindles so many beautiful feelings and thoughts and colors in me and there isn't a part of this movie i think is weak or doesn't fail to endlessly captivate me. also- the idea of your true love never being lost to you, even when you put your duty and family before them, and how the truest of partners would battle a dragon for you...life changing. but also the bond with the fairies and how they literally gave her supernatural gifts from birth and how even this captivating, endlessly fascinating princess still pined for companionship but in a mature way and was able to respect her elders and love them and appreciate them but also be intuitive enough and so tied into herself to know she wanted more and i PROMISED i wouldn't make this too long but let me take this moment to say MARY COSTA. i mean, humanity really peaked with her

SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS

this film speaks to me on a fundamental level and i think is capable of reaching anyone who has a modicum of humanity left in them. i think it's beyond brilliant and will never be surpassed as a triumph of filmmaking, regardless of the medium. the character of snow white and everything adriana caselotti contributed to her is one of the greatest credits to mankind and the artistry that we fill this earth with. from her singing to the way she moves to how she speaks and reasons, literally everything about this character is so unique and intriguing and grimhilde has such an energy and a power to her voice and her backstory to the point where even thinking about her feels interactive. the prince provides one of the most heartwarming romances and i love how much the animals and dwarfs love snow white and this film to me is my grandmother distilled i just love the music and the plotline and the characters and it really does drive straight to your heart the way that's so effective and strong and powerful

THE WOMEN

what is a better safe space than a project that has only women? even the dogs weren't men and something about that makes me feel sooo much better instantly. i love how it scratches the itch all humans have for gossip and tea and whatnot, but without doing it in an anxiety inducing way or ever creating something that truly feels mean spirited. joan crawford is SO great as crystal, i mean her acting isn't wooden or dated at all and it's so natural, especially when compared to the film's lead (who ngl is lowkey fun to side against). i think rosalind was THE character actress and is so funny in every way you can possibly think of, the character of flora is such a charming hidden gem, and i think lucille watson has great lines. i love how chockfull the script is of clever one-liners and the acting pulls it off SO PERFECTLY, giving zingers and shading is literally as effortless to them as breathing and it's even more refreshing in the over curated era of tiktokers and late night shows where everyone's trying to be a comedian. i love the slice of life characters, like the house staff, and it's just perfect

[writefightandflightclub]

Glad you’re back! Your insights are always appreciated, and thus, a question:

I’ve been putting off watching Ex Machina for the first time, despite (or probably because) the fact that I’ve already fallen in love with the character/Oscar’s portrayal of Nathan (in large part because of your wonderful writing!). I tend to do this when I have a new actor blorbo bc I let myself enjoy things like a repressed 1950s housewife, but I’m working on it. So I’m making it a goal to watch the movie, and that way I can start writing for Nathan with more concrete understanding.

What warnings/advice do you have for someone about to watch the movie for the first time? Spoilers are fine bc I’ve already read the synopsis AND I found out if you Google “Ex Machina script” that thing’s online??? For free???

Hope this makes sense, if all else just know it’s great you’re back!

Hiiii! Thanks so much for the warm welcome back! That’s so kind,

So amazing that you’re going to watch the movie finally!! 😀 That’s some impressive restraint too. I could never.

I’m honoured that you trust my insights, but honestly I’d generally say just dive in and let it hit you. I’m excited for you to have your own unique experience with it, and I wouldn’t want to colour your experience too much with my own ramblings!

BUT, I am still going to share some things which sprang to the forefront of my mind when you asked the question. Mainly bc I love this film and I can’t resist the opportunity to talk about it and about Nathan, so thank you for the opportunity to do just that! 😆🧡 But I really would advise you to watch it first without reading them 😝

1) Nathannnnn 🥵 He pretty. He beautiful. I luff.

2) There are two neat divisions in the movie when it comes to the character of Nathan, imho. a) things we know for sure about Nathan and b) things we know for sure that Nathan needs Caleb to think about Nathan. One of the things I love about his character is the ambiguity, guesswork, and room for interpretation. Especially as the audience is placed in Caleb’s position and therefore our sympathies, assumptions, empathies, suspicions etc. more naturally fall on the side of Caleb’s interpretation. (Also bc there’s such lovely squashy room for interpretation, I’m sure that however you currently “see” him, the movie has enough wiggle room that you should safely be able to hang on to that version - if you still want to afterward, that is!)

3) Some / many of the Nathan + bot scenes are… uncomfortable. They’re… supposed to be?! Especially as we’re seeing them from Caleb’s POV, and with some major assumption of sentience on behalf of the bots.

4) Why do all his clothes seem too long for him?! I know he can afford a tailor 😂

5) I know the design of Nathan’s compound isn’t for everyone. Personally, it’s just my cup of tea. I’d move in tomorrow and wouldn’t change anything, besides maybe replacing all of his paintings 😂 I also think the movie is a great example of the set design / setting really adding a lot to our interpretation of the character, the tone and feel of the movie. Here’s an article I enjoyed on the subject:

6) It’s wild to me that this movie is presented as “with Oscar Isaac”, as though he’s minor to the piece. To me it is his movie, he’s the central character, and I don’t understand how he can be suggested as having a side role.

Please let me know what you think once you’ve seen it?! I’d love to hear your takeaways and whether your interpretation of him changes at all after watching. I really hope you enjoy it but ofc however you feel about it and about our collective grumpy husband is 100% valid! I enjoy hearing all the different takes on it all so much.

Have fun! 🧡🥳🧡🥳🧡

[denimbex1986]

'The 2024 BAFTA nominations were announced last week and one of the biggest contenders with six awards was Andrew Haig's All Of Us Strangers. The film stars Normal People's Paul Mescal and Fleabag's (Hot Priest) Andrew Scott and has been put in the running for Outstanding British Film, as well as Best Supporting Actor for Paul Mescal.

It has already caused a buzz on the awards circuit already with Paul taking home the award for Best Actor (Drama) at the Golden Globes. The BAFTA nominations mean the film has been listed for more awards than two of the most talked-about movies of last year, Barbie and Saltburn - cementing it as one of the ones to watch in 2024.

Part ghost story, part drama, part romance, All Of Us Strangers is one of the more unique films in the running this awards season. This is everything you need to know about the film that's captured the attention of critics and viewers alike.

What is All Of Us Strangers about?

The film is a loose adaptation of Strangers, the 1987 novel by Taichi Yamada, which follows the inner turmoil of the central protagonist after he meets a man who looks like his dead father. All of Us Strangers centres on Adam, a reclusive screenwriter whose day-to-day life revolves around watching re-runs, takeaways and a lot of screen time. By a seemingly chance meeting, he meets Harry, who encourages him to open up about his childhood and his long-deceased parents.

With Harry's encouragement, Adam travels back to his childhood home in the suburbs and is confronted by his parents (played by Jamie Bell and Claire Foy) who are full of questions about their now grown-up child.

The two central characters straddle a line between love and friendship, providing some connection in what is otherwise a very solitary existence. Paul recently reflected on the debate around a straight man playing a gay man, he told The Sunday Times: "It depends who's in charge of telling the story. The issue is that there have been so many queer performances in cinema that have been offensive. But that's because the filmmakers and the actors have been careless. I don’t think this film exists in that conversation whatsoever. And that's it."

It's safe to say that the film has some steamy scenes as the sexual connection between Adam and Harry intensifies. When asked on The Graham Norton Show whether their families had seen the film yet, Paul replied: "With the Irish premiere, trying to allocate tickets to all the aunties and uncles is a tricky business. They have seen my bum before but there is a little more going on in this movie I would say!" This was followed by an admission from Andrew: "I don't want to be there when my parents watch it!"

How can I watch All of Us Strangers?

...The movie currently has an exclusive theatrical release, meaning we won't be seeing it pop up on streaming services any time soon. However, once the film has finished its run in cinemas it will be available to watch on Disney+ in the UK and on Hulu in the US, according to reporting from Digital Spy.

Is there a trailer for All Of Us Strangers?

Yes, there's a trailer for All of Us Strangers...

The response from viewers has been extremely positive, with one commenting underneath the trailer: "This is one of those rare movies that makes you feel like you're stepping into an entirely formed and real world that you didn't know you needed to visit until you got there."

Another fan said of the film: "The kinda movie where that you get back from seeing in the cinema and come home immediately to watch the trailer twice over, just to feel a small sense of the scenes again. I’m just really grateful for my parents and all strangers in all walks of life."'

[pinerlists]

Squirrel drawing

SQUIRREL DRAWING HOW TO

SQUIRREL DRAWING FULL

SQUIRREL DRAWING HOW TO

This is a really simple step-by-step guide on how to draw a squirrel. As I heave two bags through the front gate I see it: a large red tomato sitting on the edge of the raised bed with a dozen tiny bites taken out of it. Squirrels are adorable animals living in trees, basically in the holes of trunks or even in the treetop in abandon crow’s nests.

SQUIRREL DRAWING FULL

On Sunday my wife and I return from somewhere with a car full of stuff. A sunflower is basically a bird feeder on a tall stand. I’d said nothing, even though I’d recognised the squirrel’s MO: he climbs the sunflowers to get at the seeds, until his weight snaps the stalk and the whole top half smashes to the ground. Sketch out the big bushy tail with curved lines. One paw is partially covered by the body. Depict two paws using curved lines of different lengths, as shown in the figure. A week before that my wife had claimed someone was breaking her sunflowers in half. Sketch out the front paws of the squirrel. That could be from anywhere, I thought – a remnant from an unloved takeaway salad. See the drawing of Squirrel by Tim and watch how to draw it And be sure to check out other drawings in the gallery Drawing of Squirrel by Tim See all Squirrel drawings Best and latest drawings. When I first saw a tomato lying in the road at the beginning of the month, I ignored it. The back garden may be the leafier of the two spaces, but the true wilderness is out front. It waited a long time before moving aside, as if to make it clear that its decision had nothing to do with me. When I came home late one night I found a fox sitting at the front gate, blocking my path to the door. And I give him a look that says: I know it’s you He gives me a look that says: I’m a completely different squirrel. When I’m out there I can’t really talk to myself, and I feel obliged to wear a shirt. I am spending more time in the front, because the bulk of my tomato crop has been rotated there this season, but it’s still a quasi-public space. Make a curved line off to the left and then continue the line under his body as the basis for his foot. Step 3: Let’s draw the line for the Squirrels tail next. Make sure you leave an indentation for the back of his neck. Draw a larger spiral for his body, continuing down from his head. It’s none of my business what my enemy the squirrel gets up to in the streets, and I find it difficult to maintain a serious territorial presence in the front garden. Step 2: Step 2: Next let’s create his body. When he sees me he freezes in the middle of the road and gives me a look that says: “I’m a completely different squirrel.” And I give him a look that says: “I know it’s you.” Sometimes when I go to the shops I catch him crossing from beneath one parked car to another with a bit of pizza crust in his mouth. It does not store any personal data.I don’t know why he left, but I do know where he’s gone: these days he lives out front. Hads is learning how to draw a squirrel today So, even though drawing this squirrel may look hard we break it up into small easy steps. So without further ado, let’s draw a squirrel. Chef says that Courtney is always bringing everyone to frown town which she gets offended by. It will be inside the first larger circle, and it should be oriented in the direction that you want the squirrel to be gazing at. The first should be the largest and the size you want the eye to be. The episode begins with Chef happily stating that he cut off a logging truck and the children begin cheering until Courtney asks why it was good news. This step consists of drawing three different-sized circles. In fact, this is my first post since Draw Central’s new redesign. Courtneys attempt to make Chef a better teacher fails when a squirrel gets his hands on her mind-control device. The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It has been a few days since my last post, but today we are going to learn how to draw a squirrel. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously. Sketch out the front paws of the squirrel. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. At the top of the head, add two identical ears using curved lines.

[koraki-grimoire]

Witchcraft in Hellenismos

Disclaimer: This post is non-exhaustive, and though I'll try to equally spread my focus, it will inevitably lean towards the kinds of magik I personally practice.

Often, in modern pagan circles, people are under the impression that Ancient Hellenismos either didn't have or despised witchcraft. This is largely from three causes. The first is simply misreading, or failing to come across witchcraft in the Hellenism they research. Second is only reading about or adhering to branches that didn't like witchcraft (usually due to it being perceived as hubristic) and therefore assuming that's the most popular opinion. Finally, sometimes people apply their assumptions based on Christian and Germanic culture to Hellenismos, and assume it carries the same attitudes.

In actuality, the view of witchcraft was historically more neutral. Witches weren't typically seen as hags, but maidens, respectable men, priests, and more. It should also be noted that, frankly, "witch" is a slightly tonally incorrect translation usually applied to the word "pharmakis."

For historical attitudes towards witches, we can read works surrounding mainly Medea and Kirke, as well as Hekate if we go past pharmakeia.

But pharmakeia and nekromankia (necromancy) are far from the only forms of witchcraft or magik--which in Ancient Greek would be "mageia" or "goeteia" depending on time and place, but will simply be called "magik" here.

So, with that very long introduction, let's get into types of magik.

Pharmakeia - Herbal Sorcery, Witchcraft

Pharmakeia is perhaps the most recognizable form of magik in historical Hellenismos. As mentioned, it was associated with the heroine Medea, as well as the goddess/nymph/hero (it's complicated) Kirke. This was magik performed using the aid of herbs, and both historically and now blends magik and science. It includes brewing poisons, casting curses, potionmaking, transmutation, and more. Kirke, famously, used pharmakeia to transform men into swine, whereas Medea tended towards poisoning, but both had variety in their craft.

Generally, when pharmakeia is translated, it's done very broadly compared to other kinds of magik. For example, pharmakeia is usually translated, especially in the Odyssey, to "witchcraft" or "sorcery." Pharmakis--the word for a practitioner of pharmakeia--is usually translated to "witch." This often leads to misconceptions of witchcraft in Hellenismos being specifically oriented around herbs and transmutation, when that's only a small piece of the picture.

Nekromankia/Nekromanteia - Necromancy

Nekromankia is far more famous now in its Anglicized pop-culture form, but it was most certainly present in Hellenismos. It's important to clarify that in Ancient Hellas, nekromankia was magik pertaining to the dead, not things such as zombies and raising the dead. In Hellenismos, the maintenance of good relationships between the dead and the living is of great importance. There were plenty of festivals devoted to placating and celebrating the dead--not to mention the monthly Attic holiday Hekate's Deipnon, devoted to honoring Hekate, goddess of nekromankia. So, unsurprisingly, there were witches who gravitated towards this as a craft.

Multiple Hellenic deities were associated with nekromankia, the most notable of which being Hekate, but also Persephone. Though, of course, any khthonic deity--especially khthonic theoi who also had non-khthonic aspects--were relevant, such as Haides or Hermes. A practitioner of nekromankia would be referred to as a nekromanteías.

Manteia - Divination, Oracles

It should be noted that manteia is heavily contested as being a form of witchcraft or even magik in Hellenismos, but it certainly meets the qualifications. The main reason this debate exists is controversy around magik in Hellenismos in general, since as most Hellenists know manteia is so central to so much of our religion, and those who dislike magik are insulted by it being considered that. Additionally, the definition of magik is constantly in flux--it's debated in modern magik circles, and it's even harder to apply a definition we can hardly agree on to an ancient culture with its own independent definitions.

Manteia is, most simply, the power to give prophecies, divination, and the use of oracles. It's the power of the Pythia (Delphic Oracle), it's in the Olympian Alphabet Oracle, it's every single seer and prophecy and divinatory method known to us.

Someone who practices manteia is called a mantis (usually translated as "soothsayer" or "diviner") or a khresmologos ("oracle"), depending on station.

Heliomanteia - Solar Magik

Heliomanteia is hard to find detailed historical information on, but most simply, it's magikal invocation of the sun. This is generally done by attempting to harness the power of the sun, or by requesting the aid of solar deities (namely, Helios).

Interestingly, Helios had many associations with witchcraft and warding off evil. It could be assumed that, due to the qualities attributed to Helios, heliomanteia would be best used to reveal truth, ward off evil, harness the power of fire, promote life, and similar.

Presumably, a practitioner of heliomanteia is a heliomantis.

Goeteia - Magik, Charms

Goeteia (in modern times "goetia") is a term for magik that fell out of style for general magik around the 5th century BC in favor of mageia. It, additionally, was shoehorned into a dichotomy of theurgy (divine, "professional," and virtuous magik) and goeteia (low, malicious, and fraudulent magik). This was largely due to political and social overhaul. The name became associated with fraudulent and harmful magik, and talk of goeteia in Ancient Hellas is a major source most anti-witch Hellenists use.

The goes (practitioner of goetia) was maligned, seen as hubristic and either trying to go against the power of the gods or intending to scam others. Plato famously portrayed them as malicious frauds, and he was not alone. Since the term "goes" is generally translated as "witch," it's not a leap to figure out why this lead to a lot of anti-witch Hellenists.

However, before this (and technically after), "goeteia" simply meant magic, charms, and similar. As a unique practice, and not simply an umbrella term for witchcraft, it can be considered channeling, a relative of nekromankia, or baneful magik, depending how much one leans into the later definition.

Theourgía - Deity Work, Divine Magik

Theourgia (in modern times "theurgy") quite literally translates to "deity work" or "god(s) working." It is ritual, sometimes magik, done with the intent of invoking one or more of the theoi. This was the ritual magik often performed by priests. In fact, it could be considered the mainstream magik of Ancient Hellas--assuming, of course, that one considers it magik.

It's not only historic magik that was central to the religion, but sets historical precedent for the controversial phrase "deity work." The existence of theurgy as the "higher form" of magik in Ancient Hellas is singlehandedly enough evidence to prove the phrase is not and would not be considered inherently hubristic. It should be noted that this form isn't inherently superior, but if you asked Plato, he would disagree.

There are certainly more forms of mageia in Ancient Hellas--For example, I skipped over amulets (periapta), which were almost incontestably the most common magik in a lot of Ancient Hellas, since they could technically fit under some other crafts and because they're the easiest to research on your own. It's a similar case with potions, too.

One important takeaway is the hard line between magik, religion, and science is a fairly recent invention. Pharmakeia could act as medicine, not just sorcery. Many potions were also medication. Frankly, the more women were involved, the more practical it tended to be, with 'spells' often being genuine aids to childbirth and/or birth control. This didn't make them any less magikal, and the magik doesn't make it less real.

And I hope I made it very, very clear, but witchcraft has always been in Hellenismos, and isn't inherently hubristic. That is a myth, and is rooted often in historical (and modern) classism, misogyny, xenophobia, or similar. Always consider your source's incentive to stigmatize before discounting all Hellenic witches.

[fuckyeaharchaeology]

The Pitfalls of “Charismatic Archaeology” - Part One: What’s in a Name?

All right, as promised, we’re going to take a look at the phenomenon of “charismatic archaeology” (Munawar 2017, 41) as it applies to the so-called Arch of Triumph in Palmyra, which was destroyed by Islamic State militants in 2015 and whose modern cultural context has seemingly superseded its archaeological context in the years since. Because there’s a lot to go over here, I’m going to have to split this up into a few parts. But the main takeaway of this series is that this arch—or tripylon—is still fascinating, even if it isn’t necessarily as ‘Roman’ as we are led to believe and that branding it as such does a disservice to the local Palmyrene builders responsible for its innovative construction in the late second to early third centuries AD (but more on that in later installments).

We already encounter an issue with the classification of this monument as a triumphal arch. Once it was torn down by the Islamic State in October 2015, the tripylon was introduced to the public on a global scale. In their reporting, numerous international news outlets used this term to describe the structure. However, this inaccurate classification pre-dates the arch’s destruction: my thesis advisor told me that when she last visited Palmyra in 2005, the archaeological park guided tourists to the monument and the adjacent section of the city’s Great Colonnade with a sign that read “Triumph Arc (sic) and the Long Street.” That said, the vast majority of the archaeological literature that was written prior to 2015 more accurately designates it as simply a monumental arch or, more commonly in the German-speaking world, a tripylon.

Other common misattributions the monumental arch is given are those of “Hadrian’s Arch/Gate” and the “Arch of Septimius Severus,” though the former is more often a fixture in the German-speaking world (where it’s called the Hadrian Bogen or Hadrianstor). In AD 129/130, Hadrian did himself travel to Palmyra, and during his stay, he granted the city his name (Hadriana Palmyra; Browning 1979, 27). And while it is true that there was an uptick in monumental civic construction and ‘Romanization’ in the city afterwards, the tripylon had not begun to be built until roughly the late Antonine period, around AD 175/180 (Barański 1995, Fig. 1; Tabaczek 2001, 128), so it could not have feasibly been built for Hadrian (in contrast to Hadrian’s Arch in Gerasa, Jordan). Similarly, this start date places its chronology too early to have been built for Septimius Severus, either, as his reign lasted from AD 193–211. That said, a number of scholars do date its construction to his reign or to post-212 more broadly (e.g. Browning 1979, 88; Burns 2017, 245; or Will 1983, 74). However, in doing so, they fail to take into consideration that a structure as large and complicated as the tripylon (more on that later) would have taken years and years to complete, and it was most likely finished sometime in the late Severan period (Tabaczek 2001, 38. 130). Therefore, any commemorative/honorific purpose for this arch is called into question (though statues to Odenathus and his family were placed in niches in the central passageway well after its initial construction in the mid-late 3rd century AD; Burns 2017, 245). 

The monument’s designation as a ‘triumphal’ arch or the Arch of Hadrian/Septimius Severus immediately brings it firmly into the realm of ‘Roman’ archaeology, but naming it as such ignores the tripylon’s indigenous Palmyrene context, which in itself tells a much richer story than its apparent association with the Roman Empire. It should be stressed that the term ‘triumphal arch’ was seldom used in antiquity (Cassibry 2018, 246) and that scholars from over a century ago had even expressed the need to use caution when defining these monuments as such (Densmore Curtis 1908, 27). Not only does this term signal the ‘Romanness’ of these structures, but it tends to evoke a sense of particular importance or gravitas to the modern layperson on account of how modern Western powers have adapted the architectural form and used it to express their own “cultural statement,” whether at home or abroad in colonized territories (e.g. the Arc de Triomphe in Paris or the Gateway of India in Mumbai; Ball 2016, 286).

In reality, the eastern Roman territories of Syria and Provincia Arabia have no known ‘true’ triumphal arches, such as those that we’d associate with the city of Rome itself (e.g. the Arch of Septimius Severus or the Arch of Constantine; Ball 2016, 286), but there are three known commemorative/honorific arches to the emperors Trajan (Dura Europos) and Hadrian (Jerusalem and Gerasa; Segal 1997, 131). The point of such monuments was to serve as imperial propaganda “in Wort und Bild” (“in word and image”; Kader 1996, 184). As we will see in later parts of this series, this was not necessarily the case where Palmyra’s tripylon is concerned.

Speaking of cultural statements and propaganda, it is also possible that the concept of triumph was used to the advantage of the Institute for Digital Archaeology of Oxford and Harvard Universities when it decided to use digital methodologies to create a physical reconstruction of the tripylon in 2016 (and believe me, there will be an entire separate post about everything that was wrong with this replica). The IDA’s branding of the tripylon as such in the wake of the Islamic State’s retreat from Palmyra may have delivered a different kind of political message in the sense that the arch and its subsequent reconstruction could represent a triumph of the Syrian people and their cultural heritage over the militants and their wanton destruction of it—perhaps as a 21st-century parallel to Zenobia’s liberation of Palmyra from the Roman Empire (Munawar 2019, 152). Whatever the reason, the emphasis on the monument’s charismatic ‘triumphal’ nature obfuscates its ancient urbanistic context, which will be discussed more in detail in the next part of this series.

Thanks for reading!

Works Cited:

W. Ball, Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, 2nd Edition (London 2016).

M. Barański, The Great Colonnade of Palmyra Reconsidered, Aram Periodical 7(1), 1995, 37–46.

R. Burns, Origins of the Colonnaded Streets in the Cities of the Roman East (Oxford 2017).

I. Browning, Palmyra (Park Ridge 1979).

K. Cassibry, Reception of the Roman Arch Monument, AJA 122 (2), 2018, 245–275.

C. Densmore Curtis, Roman Monumental Arches (New York 1908).

I. Kader, Propylon und Bogentor. Untersuchungen zum Tetrapylon von Latakia und anderen frühkaiserzeitlichen Bogenmonumenten im Nahen Osten (Mainz am Rhein 1996).

N. Munawar, Reconstructing Cultural Heritage in Conflict Zones: Should Palmyra be Rebuilt?, EX NOVO Journal of Archaeology 2, 2017, 33–48.

N. Munawar, Competing Heritage: Curating the Post-Conflict Heritage of Roman Syria, Bulletin - Institute of Classical Studies 62(1), 2019, 142–165.

A. Segal, From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia (Oxford 1997).

M. Tabaczek, Zwischen Stoa und Suq. Die Säulenstraßen im Vorderen Orient in römischer Zeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Palmyra (Diss. University of Cologne 2001).

E. Will, Le développement urbain de Palmyre, Syria 60, 1983, 69–81.

Image Source: x (the first is from a PowerPoint I presentation I gave in January)

[sixth-light]

The Crusades: A Fandom Primer

Like many of you, I am very excited to see a whole lot of fic about everybody’s favourite new Crusades-era Muslim/Christian immortal warrior husbands! However, a preliminary reading indicates that fandom is a bit hazy on what actually happened during the Crusades. Or where. Or why. They’re a much-mythologised piece of history so this isn’t surprising, but at popular request – ok like five people that counts – I’m here with a fandom-oriented Crusades primer.

Please bear in mind that I’m not a historian and this primer is largely based on my notes and recollections from several undergraduate history courses I took in the mid ‘00s. I expect the field has moved on somewhat, and I welcome corrections from people with more up-to-date knowledge! There’s also this very good post by someone who is a lot less lazy about links than I am.

Where did they take place?

The Crusades, broadly, describe a series of invasions of the Eastern Mediterranean (modern Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Beirut, Jordan, Cyprus, and parts of Turkey and Greece) by (mostly) Western European armies, religiously justified by their belief that the city of Jerusalem should be part of ‘Christendom’, i.e. ruled by a Christian monarch. In the first expression of European settler colonialism, nobles from the area of modern France and Germany founded four Crusader Kingdoms (aka ‘Outremer’, ‘overseas’) – the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and County of Tripoli.

  After a first unexpected wave of success in the First Crusade (1096-1099), which surprised everybody including the participants by conquering Jerusalem, the Crusaders were gradually driven and the last part of Outremer was lost to European control with the fall of the city of Acre in 1291. Crusades after that still nominally aimed to take Jerusalem but rarely got very far, with the Fourth Crusade famously sacking the city of Byzantium, their nominal Christian allies, in 1204. During this whole period activity that can be considered part of the ‘Crusades’ took place around the Eastern Mediterranean.

The most important thing to remember is that modern national boundaries didn’t exist in the same way; Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and the UK were not unified nations. Most of the southern Iberian peninsula (modern Spain) was ‘al-Andalus’, Muslim kingdoms ruled by nobility originally from North Africa. Sicily had been an Emirate up until very recently, when it had been conquered by Normans (Vikings with a one-century stopover in France). Italy and Germany in particular were a series of city-states and small duchies; Genoa, if you’re curious about it for some reason, ;), was a maritime power with more or less a distinct language, Genoese Ligurian (their dialect had enough of a navy to qualify). England had recently become part of the Anglo-Norman Empire, which ruled most of England (but not Wales or Scotland) and also large parts of modern France, particularly Normandy.

The Muslim world was similarly fragmented in ways that don’t correspond to modern national boundaries - there were multiple taifa states in Iberia, the Almoravid Caliphate in Morocco, the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, and (nominally) the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad, one of the great cities of the era, although the Seljuq Turks were the major power in Anatolia (modern Turkey) and what we describe as the ‘Middle East’. 

The largest Christian unified power in the wider European/Mediterranean region was the Byzantine Empire, centered on the city of Constantinople (modern Istanbul), which quite fairly considered itself the direct continuation of the Roman Empire, the capital having been moved there by the Emperor Constantine in 323. In fact, the really big political and religious question of the time for Christians was who got to be considered the centre of Christendom (there was no real concept of ‘Europe’ at this point) – the Orthodox Church, the Byzantine Emperor, and the Patriarch of Constantinople in Constantinople, or the Holy Roman Emperor (er…dude in nominal charge of a lot of German and Italian principalities) and the Roman Catholic Church led by the Pope in Rome. The Orthodox Church in Constantinople and the Roman Catholic Church had agreed to disagree in 1054 in the Great Schism, so in 1096 this issue was still what you’d call fresh.

Onto this stage of East-West disagreement and the heritage of Rome crashed the Seljuq Turks, a Muslim group from Central Asia who swept through Anatolia (modern Turkey), Byzantium’s richest province, culminating in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 which wiped out Byzantium as an independent military force. The southern provinces had fallen under Muslim rule long ago, during the era of the first Umayyad Caliphate – including Jerusalem, famous as the birthplace of Christianity and a holy site for Judaism and Islam as well, but also a fairly uninteresting provincial town. Until...

Until…what?

Here’s why all the geography matters: It is generally accepted that the First Crusade kicked off largely because Alexios I Comnenus, the then-current Byzantine Emperor, requested aid from Western Europe against the Muslim Seljuq Turks. Byzantium often recruited mercenaries from Western Europe; the Normans (aka the Vikings), who had settled Normandy and southern Italy in the past century were frequent hires. Hence those runes in the Hagia Sophia.

Meanwhile in Western Europe, the Pope – Urban II – was having difficulty with the current Emperor, and was eager to heal the Schism and establish the primacy of the Roman church. He declared that an expedition to aid the Byzantines would have the blessing of the church, and that a new kind of pilgrimage – an armed pilgrimage – was religiously acceptable, if aimed against the enemies of Christendom.

Pilgrimages (travelling to holy sites, such as churches that held saints’ relics) were a major part of European Christianity at the time and many people went on pilgrimage in their lives, so this was a familiar concept. Western Europe was also somewhat overpopulated with knights – don’t think plate armour, this is 1096, think very murderous rich men with good swords – who could always use forgiveness, on account of all the murder. The Roman Catholic church, unlike the Eastern Orthodox church, also subscribed to the concept of ‘just war’, that war could be acceptable for the right reasons. And so a whole lot of nobles from the area of modern France, Belgium, England, Germany, and Italy decided that this new Crusade thing was something they wanted in on – and they took several armies with them.

I’m going to skip over a bunch of stuff involving the People’s Crusade (a popular movement of poorer people, got literally slaughtered in Anatolia), the massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe, and a lot of battles, but the takeaway is this: Alexios probably thought he was getting mercenaries. He got a popular religious movement that, somewhat unfortunately, actually achieved its goal (Jerusalem), did next to nothing to solve his Anatolia problem, and gave a succession of Popes a convenient outlet for errant knights, nobles, and rulers: going on Crusade.  

How many were there?

Official Crusades that anybody cares about: Nine, technically. Crusade-like military events that immortal soldiers might have got involved with, plus local stoushes in Outremer: way more. WAY more.

The First Crusade (1096-1099): First and original, set a frankly (heh) terrible precedent, founded the Crusader States and captured Jerusalem. Only regarded as a clash of civilisations by the Western Christians involved. For the local Muslims it was just another day at the ‘Byzantium hires Frankish mercenaries to make our lives difficult’ office.

The Crusade of 1101: Everybody who peaced out on the First Crusade hurried to prove they were actually up for it, once the remaining First Crusaders took Jerusalem. Didn’t do much.

The Second Crusade (1147-1150): The County of Edessa falls, Eleanor of Aquitaine happens (my fave), the only winners are the people who semi-accidentally conquer Lisbon (in Portugal) (but from Muslim rulers so that…counts?).

The Third Crusade (1189-1192): You all know this one because it has RICHARD THE LIONHEART and SALADIN. Much Clash of Civilisations, very Noble, did enough to keep the remaining Crusader kingdoms going but access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims was obtained by treaty, not conquest. Indirectly responsible for the Robin Hood mythos when Richard gets banged up in prison on the way home and is away from England for ages.

The Fourth Crusade (1202-1204): Aims for Jerusalem, ends up sacking the Eastern Orthodox city of Constantinople, just not a great time for anybody, more or less the eventual cause of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453.  

The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221): Still going for Jerusalem, starts with Cairo instead, does not get anywhere it wants to even after allying with the Anatolian Sultanate of Rum, making the whole ‘Christians vs Muslims’ thing even murkier than it already was post the Fourth Crusade.

The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229): Somehow these things are still going. Nobody even does very much fighting. Access to Jerusalem is negotiated by treaty, yet again.

The Seventh, Eight, and Ninth Crusades: Seriously nobody cares anymore and also nobody is trying very hard. Kings have better things to do, mostly. People end up in Egypt a lot. We covered these in one lecture and I have forgotten all of it.

The Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229): Why take a three-year trip to the Holy Land to fight pagans when you can fight the ones in your own backyard (southern France), AND take their stuff? Famously the source of the probably apocryphal ‘Kill them all, God will know His own’ quote, regarding the massacre of most of a city harbouring Cathars (a Christian sect deemed heretical).

Can we circle back to that ‘massacres of Jews’ bit? WTF?

Crusades, historically, were Not A Good Time for Jewish communities in Europe; when Christians were riled up to go and Fight The Infidel, it was a lot quicker to massacre local Jews than travel to the Holy Land. Also, then you could take their stuff. I will note here that it is VERY TACKY to use historical pogroms as backdrops for your non-Jewish main characters so keep this in mind but, like, use with extreme caution in fanfic, okay? Generally life was a lot easier for Jewish communities in Muslim-ruled states in this period, which is why so many Hispanic Jews ended up in Turkey after they were expelled from Spain. 

What were they really about, then?

Historians still Have Opinions about this. Genuine religious fervour was absolutely a key motivator, especially of the First Crusade. The ability to wage war sanctioned by the Church, or to redeem your local sins by going and fighting against the pagans, was part of that, too. Control of key trade routes to the East was probably not not a part of it. The Crusader States were definitely Baby’s First Experiment With Settler Colonialism, and paved the theological and rhetorical ground for the colonisation of the Americas. But many individuals on the Christian side would absolutely have believed they were doing God’s work. The various Muslim rulers and certainly the local Christian, Jewish, and Muslim inhabitants of the Holy Land itself were mostly just getting invaded by Franks. As time wound on the Crusades became more and more political (frequently featuring intra-religious violence and inter-religious alliances) and less and less about their forever nominal goal, control of Jerusalem.

How’s Wikipedia on this?

Basically not too bad but I’m not totally confident on some of the bits about motivation (see: white supremacists love this period, ugh.)

Why did they stop?

The prospect of re-taking Jerusalem vanished entirely as the Ottoman Empire centralised and took a firm hold over most of the Levant (and made inroads into Europe, as far as Austria, taking Constantinople in 1453 and finally ending the continuous Roman Empire), the Spanish Reconquista and various intra-European conflicts (the Hundred Years’ War, for example) absorbed military attention, and then the Reformation happened and half of Europe stopped listening to the Pope and started stabbing each other over who was the right kind of Christian. But the concept lingered; white supremacists love the Crusades. Which is why it is a very good idea to be sparing with Crusader imagery around Niccolò in fanfic set in the modern era, and please for fuck’s sake stop with the ‘crugayders’ tag, Yusuf wasn’t a Crusader.  

What other fun facts should I keep in mind re: Nicky | Nicolò and Joe | Yusuf?

·        Genoa is not the same as Italy; Nicolò is Nicolò di Genova and would have spoken Genoese (Ligurian) and considered himself to be Genoese. Italian as a language didn’t really exist yet. The language he and Yusuf would most likely have had in common was the ‘lingua franca’ (Frankish language, literally) of the Mediterranean trading region, a pidgin based heavily on maritime Italian languages. Yusuf 300% would have thought of him as a ‘Frank’ (the generic term for Western Christians) and probably annoyed him by calling him that until at least 1200 or so.

·        Yusuf is apparently from ‘Maghrib’, which I assume means al-Maghrib/the Maghreb (as his actor is IIRC of Tunisian descent), i.e. North Africa. He could have had relatives in al-Andalus (southern modern Spain), he may have spoken languages other than Arabic natively (Mozarabic or Berber), his native area had universities before Europe did. Basically: this is as useful as saying he’s ‘from Europe’, do better backstory writers.

·        Taking the whole ‘Nicky used to be a priest’ backstory at face value: being a priest in 1096 looked pretty different to how it did even 200 years later. They were still working on the celibacy thing. The famous monastic orders were still forming. Some priests could and did hold lands and go to war (this wasn’t common but it happened, especially if they were nobles by birth). Nicolò di Genova would not necessarily have seen a conflict between going on Crusade and being a priest, is what I’m getting at. If he was ALSO trained as a knight, he was from a wealthy family; it took the equivalent several villages to support a knight.

·        ‘Period-typical homophobia’ is going to look very different for this period. They are NOT getting beaten up for holding hands. Or sharing a bed! Or even kissing, depending on the circumstances! I am not an expert on Islamic sexual mores of the era but Christian ones were heavily on the side of ‘unsanctioned sex is bad, sanctioned (marital) sex is slightly less bad’, and there was no concept of ‘being gay’. An interfaith relationship would be in some ways more of a problem for them than the same-sex one (and in some ways less difficult to navigate than a heterosexual interfaith relationship.) The past is another country.

·        Look just no more fanfics where Yusuf is trying to learn ‘Italian’ in the early twelfth century I am BEGGING you all

[crescentfool]

that ryomina knitting scene (and some headcanons)

i love this screencap of ryomina knitting together as a part of the helper’s club montage.

one of the immediate observations one can make about this scene is how ryoji and minato are knitting with the color that’s central to each other’s design. ryoji is working with minato’s blue, and minato is working with ryoji’s yellow.

but my personal favorite takeaway from this tiny moment is seeing how proficient ryoji is at knitting. i feel that it just offers some nice food for thought about ryoji and some soft ryomina headcanons.

i like to interpret knitting as a peaceful type of hobby- one that is soothing and comforting. so in my eyes, knitting could be a comfort hobby for ryoji! when placed in context of his relationship with minato- i can see ryoji treating it as a love language of sort, in which he likes to give minato personalized gifts that affirm his existence.

and as such- i like to think it could’ve been possible for ryoji to knit a matching scarf for minato (he could have possibly knitted his own scarf, perhaps!). none of minato’s outfits featured in the movies feature any scarves to keep him warm, and maybe this is just my own bias toward winter fashion, but it’d suit minato! nothing beats ryoji going to the effort to make a personalized gift for minato to help him stay warm.

on a tangentially related subject- i also think that if these two were to live together, it’d be really cute for them to adopt some kittens/cats. and ryoji’s proficiency with knitting could also extend to them as well.

now, lastly, some december ryomina thoughts (continued under the cut for anyone who would like to avoid spoilers):

with the headcanon that ryomina have matching scarves (courtesy of ryoji’s very wonderful knitting), i like to think that the scarf that ryoji knitted for minato would act as “tangible proof” that their relationship existed and was real. as ryoji disappears on the full moon at the start of december- the scarf becomes the only remnant of ryoji that minato has.

and as such, minato decides to safeguard the scarf by wearing it at all times. this way, it’s as if ryoji is still with him and at his side. i find that handcrafted items and the like often carry a personal meaning- it’s the essence of love as there’s no other item quite like that.

when ryoji finally returns on december 31st to ask minato what his decision is- i think it would be a heartwarming from his perspective to see that minato has still held onto the scarf. it’s one of the ways that their relationship has manifested itself into a physical form, and proof of their bond.

and that’s all! i love the knitting scene even if it only lasts for a few seconds. please let ryoji knit to his heart’s content because the dude honestly seems like he’d enjoy stupidly simple things in life. he’s so earnest and i think he places a lot of value in the beauty of humanity thanks to his time spent inside of minato as pharos! i think he’d enjoy being around humans and learning the simple pleasures of life.

thanks for coming to my ryomina ted talk, this had no right to be this long but alas it is. feel free to hmu with your own hcs too or share posts with me! i’d love to see them and i’d definitely like to make more posts like this in the future. 💗

[undertaker1827]

hello ! how are you ? a hc for sebastian and edward when their s/o plays with childrens, they're very happy and like to stay with her because she is very kind to them, she treats them as if they were her children thank you ! >~< 💜💜

Hi there! I’m good thank you, hope you are too!! Absolutely, hope you like it!

Masterlist

-

Sebastian

Sebastian thinks the whole thing is just overly cute

It’s like you’re some sort of mother act and all these kittens keep coming to you for comfort

Children seem to have this inbuilt radar whereby they know which people wouldn’t mind talking to them and which to avoid

Somewhat unnecessary to point out the demon himself has worked very hard to stay firmly in the ‘avoid’ category

Hopefully even ‘avoid at all costs’

You on the other hand couldn’t be more different

You’ve loved children for as long as he’s known you and he suspects it’s a lifelong thing for you

It’s not something he can honestly say eh relates to or really even understands, but it makes you happy and as long as they talk to you and not him, that’s good enough for him

One day, the pair of you had gone to the annual ice festival together

Although it was still fairly early evening, it was winter so the sky was already dark and your breaths were left frozen and hanging as white clouds in the air

You were in the middle of the city and there were street vendors and merchandise stands

Most people were going around with takeaway food or at least warm drinks and the whole atmosphere was alive

Everyone was chatting and laughing, even to strangers they had never met before

those who went every year knew the usual street vendors and struck up conversation while they waited in line often involving other customers waiting behind them in the cheerful talk

All was wonderful until you came across a small boy standing in the middle of the street

He was crying his eyes out, alone and clearly having lost his people

You and Sebastian saw him at the same time and you immediately rushed over, the demon following closely behind

He stayed back a ways though to avoid frightening the child any further - he did have a heart when it came to you, after all

You asked the boy what was wrong and between sobs he told you he’d lost his dad

You smiled warmly, reassuring him and asking what his dad looked like where he had last seen him

He told you, but when he got even more upset you told him his dad was looking for him even more frantically

The boy sniffled and asked if it was true, which you agreed with emphatically

You looked back up at Sebastian to back you up on that point

He just nodded, giving a small, polite smile

You turned back to the boy, but that left the demon to scan the crowd until he located the father, who rushing from one side of the street to the other, asking everyone who he found if they had seen his son

He was too far away for the boy to see, but Sebastian looked at him until he made eye contact, then raised a hand and glanced downwards to wear you were crouched on the pavement

He ran over, telling the boy off, hugging him and telling him everything was alright then thanking the both of you all in quick succession

You smiled and waved as they walked away together, Sebastian watching the unfiltered joy on your features with a soft smile gracing his own

Edward

Whenever Edward sees you interact with children, he always thinks about how great a mother you would be

He finds your kindness towards children to be inspiring, your willingness to help others remarkable and your smile infectious

He thinks its incredible that wherever you go, children seem able to single you out from everyone else in the crowd as a person it would be safe to talk to

Edward himself isn’t so much ‘anti-child’ as he doesn’t think it’s his place to interact with them as much as you can

His line of thinking is that most people don’t mind their child walking up to a woman as much as they do a man and he would hate to make anybody feel uncomfortable

That doesn’t mean he can’t feel happy and enjoy watching you interact with them though

One day, the two of you were on a trip out in London

You were sight seeing really, despite having been many times before, as it was an especially nice day and you had collectively decided it was the best way to spend your time

People came from all over the world to visit the many sights and attractions London had to offer and despite having lived there your whole lives you couldn’t honestly say you had visited all that many of the tourist destinations

You had decided to take something of a break around midday and as such were waiting in a queue for a new fast food phenomenon known as a ‘curry bun’

There was not a person who didn’t recommend it and the signs on the stall claimed it was the only one in Central London

They also boasted as many flavours you could think of so you couldn’t help but want to try one

You were chatting idly and swapping theories for what you thought the food would taste like when something tugged your coat

You glanced down to find a girl beaming up at you, two front teeth missing and utterly thrilled

You smiled back greeting her warmly and kneeling down to talk to her

“Did you know,” she started confidently, “that my mummy is going to get me a curry bun?”

“Really?” You replied incredulously, “I had no idea, that sounds so exciting! What flavour are you thinking of trying?”

Edward watched the scene play out with a happy smile on his face

The girl was very excited to tell you all about her favourite curry bun, the one she always had, and then about her second favourite and so on

You listened faithfully throughout the entire explanation, throwing in your opinion and asking questions every so often

Eventually the girl’s mother came over, carrying the long awaited curry bun and the girl immediately ran to grab it from her

Her mother apologised for her chatterbox tendencies, but you only laughed and said you had enjoyed the conversation, now knowing far more about the food than you had done previously

When you stood back up, you turned to Edward with a ‘what?’ as his eyes glittered with his smile

He shook his head, claiming if you could see yourself when you did that, you would be smiling too

[thingsreadinthedark]

STILL READING: SISTER OUTSIDER by Audre Lorde

Scratching the Surface: Some Notes on Barriers to Women and Loving* — Feb 21, 2022

“All too often the message comes loud and clear to Black women from Black men: “I am the only prize worth having and there are not too many of me, and remember, I can always go elsewhere. So if you want me, you’d better stay in your place which is away from one another, or I will call you ‘lesbian’ and wipe you out.” Black women are programmed to define ourselves within this male attention and to compete with each other for it rather than to recognize and move upon our common interests.”

“For Black women as well as Black men, it is axiomatic that if we do not define ourselves for ourselves, we will be defined by others — for their use and to our detriment.”

Takeaways —

Audre Lorde is really a fucking visionary. This chapter was something else because it’s just so interesting to see how things have stayed the same in so many tragic ways, but how they have also progressed in so many beautiful ways.

I’ve got some ladies in my life who are a part of the LGBTQ community and the way in which they have created space for each other is a heartwarming thing to experience. Black women holding each other down.

I heard someone on YouTube say recently that if you wanted to eliminate patriarchy, the world would have to end and start over. I thought that shit was insane because who has really got the time for that! However, I can see how it could feel like that in these times given how the patriarchal understanding of liberation, even amongst the brothers, rarely if ever can see itself as existing without the submission and domination of somebody.

Brothers don’t want to be dominated. However, they’re so tied to their domination of some perceived lesser group that they’re harmful in so many ways.

Lorde speaks on the fact that brothers may try to weaponize the community that women build with each other against them because it distracts from men being the central focus of Black women’s lives. She specifically speaks to the ways that cishet Black men view homosexuality especially lesbianism and how they weaponize care and nurturing between Black women as something devious, when we’re not the ones sexually assaulting or murdering the women and children in our communities.

“Instead of keeping our attentions focused upon our real needs, enormous energy is being wasted in the Black community today in antilesbian hysteria. Yet women-identified women — those who sought their own destinies and attempted to execute them in the absence of male support — have been around in all of our communities for a long time. As Yvonne Flowers of York College pointed out in a recent discussion, the unmarried aunt, childless or otherwise, whose home and resources were often a welcome haven for different members of the family, was a familiar figure in many of our childhoods. And within the homes of our Black communities today, it is not the Black lesbian who is battering and raping our underage girl-children out of displaced and sickening frustration.”

She illustrates how the lesbian/gay “aunties” houses were most times a space of education and reprieve for children, in her experience.

It’s a good read, it was a great essay tonight.

Slowly, slowly getting through it!

[deadmunds-ghostbee]

I also do not want Edwina with a white guy. It would be nice to see an interracial relationship on the show w/o a white person. I know Edwina eventually has a match of her own, but I would like if she isn’t married this season, and they leave it a little open ended. They haven’t talked much about Edwina being bookish and nerdy like the book, and I hope that’s still in tact. I kind of want her to be a bluestocking, living on Anthony’s dime at the end.

I’m also trying to keep the faith for gay Edwina. It would be too perfect. Charithra seems to speak in hyperbole a lot, so who knows. But imo that’s the only storyline that would justify talks of Edwina having supposedly the biggest character arc.

Agree with all you said anon!

It seems likely at this point that Edwina will have a love interest, but a special and unexpected friend *could* still be just a friend? I think for me, Edwina's arc is so important because it will be a new and central part to the main plot. Like I'll welcome the deviations (you know what im talking about) from the book as long as they make her story worth those deviations. Running off with a conventionally attractive woke straight white boy character (even if he's poor or whatever (side note-is pen paying him a lot? How does he feel abt her dragging ppl in a gossip column? is that his way of fighting the rich lol?)) may be a risk in-universe, but through the modern lens which production boasts, it's optics are just really underwhelming?

Like think about it. If this powerful arc about an immigrant girl navigating her autonomy and dealing with expectations of being a perfect wife ends with her running off with someone like that, what really is the modern viewer's takeaway? (Don't mean to use Charithras words against her if this is actually what ends up happening. she's excited about a character who she's connected to and is right to hype her! this is just my thoughts on the writers room).

But because of all of this maybe I'm a little optimistic about where they can take her? I've just been assuming the absolute worst (and I'm aware the cynicism is showing).

It's very possible after a Kathony marriage (whether Edwina is pissed abt it or not) that suitors won't want to be with her anymore because of gossip or they think something's wrong with her. Maybe the queen or LW will publicly roast her lol? Maybe in this place where she feels useless because she can't make a marriage which she thought was the only thing she was ever good for, she "falls in love" with some other person and ruins herself in the process? Maybe someone else ruins her? And she has to pull herself from the bad cycle and take a good look at herself.

All this aside I actually do have a smaller hope for her. I really want to see her hang out with Eloise and Penelope. Their little nerd squad will be so fucking messy when they're meant to be the smart ones. I hope there is time for something like this but I do expect most of her airtime to be with Kathony. At least up through episode 6.

My many paragraphs aside: I am determined to love her even if her arc sucks! I'll give her my own happy ending if I think she deserves more than what she gets.

This is Edwina Nation and we are Edwina strong and anyone who says a bad word abt the baby girl is gonna have to throw hands

[rotzaprachim]

i realised i probably will never get here in in painter’s light so enjoy this my favorite fandom crossover/easter egg i’ve ever written:

(It’s from an au where declan stayed with his mother ergo canon + dialect differences)

6. Washington DC 

Age twenty, he gets a business call from a woman who has a statue to sell. Normally he doesn’t take these kinds of calls anymore, the ones that are meant to go straight to his mother’s number, but this woman sounds desperate in the way that has him thinking it’s better if he handles it than one of his mother’s hands in the city, so he buys two Amtrack tickets, and north he goes. Matthew gets sick after eating a microwaveable, foil-wrapped train burger from the snack car.  

He installs Matthew in the Met while he meets his contact. An old school deli, one of the kind that’s apparently disappearing fast, an endangered species, and she’s probably a local so it’ll be annoying or pretentious anyway, but she refused any of his options for fancier, more expensive wine-and-dine locations anyway so deli it is. He gets a lox bagel and a coffee and two black-and-whites in a bag to split with Matthew later while he sizes her up. She keeps looking at her hands but she’s calm with the person she called in from Boudicca, has something steely about her, like she’s dealt with bigger fish before and isn’t scared. There’s something about her that’s like him, he knows, thought they don’t say the magic word at all. He thinks she’s maybe thirty. 

“In the interest of not beating around the bush further, as it’s clear that’s what neither of us is here to do, let’s move on to the real action item.” 

“I have a statue to sell.” 

She shows him photos. The camera resolution isn’t quite what he needs to appraise it seriously, but he can see how shockingly life-like it is already. 

“How much d’you want for it?” 

“Fifty thousand.” 

He almost coughs up his coffee. 

“You haven’t been playing this game for long.” 

She doesn't’ say anything. 

“Fifty thousand, take it or leave it.” 

“What’s the material?” 

“Marble.” 

He considers. If it’s good up close he could probably resell it for four or five times that to some collector interested in neo-hellenic stuff. Not many people making original marble statuary these days compared to the market of the super-rich looking for shit to decorate their back gardens. 

“Can you show me?” 

Declan calls Matthew to tell him to go back to the hotel and get takeaway without him and follows the woman uptown on the bus. They get off in Spanish Harlem, a world away from the shiny robot skyscrapers downtown. She lives on the fourth floor of her building, in a narrow apartment somewhat rank with the smell of body odour and spilled beer, although she throws the windows open and has loads of potted plants about, like she’s trying very hard to get rid of the smell. 

“There.” 

The sculpture is unmissable. Life size and astonishingly, terribly ugly. Truly incredible in it’s attention to awful detail. A middle aged, balding, short man with a fan of cards in one hand and a beer swinging from the other, positioned exactly as if he’s just got up from sitting. Mouth opened, soundlessly screaming his head off. Declan sees it and flinches without even meaning too. His mother’s not had many men, but she had a few, when she was younger. But it’s just a statue. Just a statue. 

Still one of the weirdest goddamn things he’s ever fucking seen, and that’s saying something. 

Authentic marble though. 

“Formal education? Apprenticed to someone?” 

“Take it or leave it. Fifty thousand.” 

No more information. He knows exactly why she called him. He’s the kind of man you call when you don’t have information about the life-sized sculpture of a man in your sitting room and no information to give about how you made it, in the same year you report your husband missing to the police. When to the untrained eye, the two look identical. He’s that kind of man. 

He gets her three million USD for it. 

It’s all through an official channel so it’s harder to launder, get it looking legal. A million upfront, the rest leaked in increments over the next ten years. All shiny, all legal, all IRS-signed off. He personally takes out fifty thousand and puts it in a manila  envelope for when he meets her a few blocks off central station, an hour before his train’s scheduled to leave. He gives her the envelope. She gives him a white paper bag containing only blue sweets. It looks like a proper pick-n-mix haul, something he didn’t even think the States had. Whoppers, sour strings, taffy, gum, gummy sharks. He eats a sweet and sour wind-up before being able to stop himself, the sweet-sour crystals on his fingers like being a kid again. 

“You’re so young,” she says finally, like this didn’t occur to her the entire time he was selling what was probably her husband’s dead body. 

He shrugs, but he’s smiling. “But I got your done.” She can’t be more than ten years older than him, anyway, and most of her jobs have been harder. You don’t tell art world undergrounders your personal life, anyway, but he noticed all of the accoutrements of a maybe secondary-school aged kid lurking around her flat, Lucky Charms, mud scuffs on the floor in strange places, football jerseys in the hamper. She’d tried to hide the obvious things, no photos on the fridge or skateboard leaning against the door frame, but he had an eye for those kinds of details like other people had a head for figures, and he recognised the detritus of a teenager well, because he’d been one recently and he had one. 

She appraises him for a second. Her eyes are large and very dark brown, and they don’t let anything go. “Zeus?” she finally says, like she’s been thinking it for a long time, testing the waters. “Hera?” 

“Like the Greek gods?” 

He went through his greek mythology phase, for sure. Half of decoding what posh people write seems to be about knowing the ins and outs of the soap operatic turns of events people told each other for fun two thousand years ago, which is then called Classics. 

She looks at him longer, considers him. 

“Lugh, then? Bridgid?” 

“I don’t know what you mean by that.” 

She nods. “Sorry if- nevermind. Thank you for selling my statue.” 

“I hope you do well with it. With your… artistic career. Now, and I don’t fucking care if you blow throught he money in a year, never call me again. Never call this number again. Never call any number related to it. If your money never comes through do fine with a million and don’t go looking. Never.” They shake hands and part ways, and he never sees her again, but he does think about her a lot afterwards anyway, parsing their conversation out. No gods and no God either, as far as he knows. Strange fucking thing to ask. 

He’s learned enough by how Matthew is on trains - and on ferries, it transpires, and in strange taxis, and he doesn’t want to fucking think about the transatlantic flight he’s planning at some point - not to let him eat much before the train back to DC, for which he feels bad. While they were in New York he let Matthew choose a show and dutifully got some last minute Dear Evan Hansen tickets off a third party seller, got the good seats and the playbill they got signed after by the cast, Declan knows who to talk to for these kinds of things.

[bwprowl]

Me vs. The Mitchells vs. The Machines

The Mitchells vs. The Machines is a really cool movie. Seriously! It’s the Spider-Verse crew continuing to be at the top of their game, doing their damnedest to elevate and evolve 3D film animation in a way apart from the ongoing Disneyfied edge-sanding seen elsewhere. Several sequences, especially the final fight scene at the end, are absolutely jaw-dropping. A lot of the writing of the movie is also genuinely clever, with some cool tricks of weaving in Chekov’s Guns that you don’t even realize WERE Chekov’s Guns until they’re deployed, but then make perfect sense. And I also just have to say there’s something oddly heartening about a movie that does a lot to target Millenials in terms of nostalgia, but not so much via our shows and movies and music the way other project might go about, but specifically by tapping the internet meme culture of the early-00’s that’s so media-unique to that emergent generation. There’s some genuine heart visible in so many of the levels of how this thing was made that I can understand its touting as an instant classic and the waves of praise and popularity that have followed its release.

Unfortunately, I can’t so unilaterally praise this movie, mostly because I can NOT stop thinking about how poorly-implemented and mis-framed its central familial conflict is.

Oh yeah spoilers for this movie I guess

So I’ll need to detour at first and talk about A Goofy Movie, which isn’t much of an issue for me since I fucking love A Goofy Movie. And watching The Mitchells vs. The Machines my initial takeaway was a pleasant observation that someone had basically grafted A Goofy Movie to The World’s End, which could have made for an extremely fun time for me. A Goofy Movie, so it goes, centers on the conflict between a father and child trying to understand each other, spurred on by the father conscripting the child into an impromptu road-trip which the child initially resents but eventually leans into as a vehicle for understanding as the family members open up to each other and end with a greater appreciation for their familial bond as well as healthier, more open lines of communication. There are comical misunderstandings, dramatic misunderstandings, and escalating Wacky Adventures that keep the trip feeling suitably cinematic in scope. And as The Mitchells vs. The Machines continued on, I kept finding myself rounding back to that comparison and asking “Why am I not getting into this as much as I do A Goofy Movie?”

It turns out to be a point of motivation, actually. In A Goofy Movie, Goofy dragooning Max into the cross-country fishing trip is immediately borne out of his (however misinformed) desire to keep his son from going down a wrong, potentially delinquent or criminal path. Goofy has concerns about the lessened connection and communication with Max, sure, but that’s a symptom of his inability to communicate his actual worries about Max’s behavior to him, not the sum total of the problem he feels needs fixing. Goofy is under the impression there are genuine problems Max is going through, and while he’s got the actual particulars wrong, he’s not really that far off, since Max still IS the kind of kid to elaborately hijack a school function or make up extravagant lies to get attention from the girl he likes rather than just talking to her and asking her out like a normal human-dog-person. Goofy’s objective is firmly centered on helping Max for Max’s sake, and he’s only taking up a few weeks out of Max’s summer and causing him to miss a single party in order to do it.

I lay all that out so you can try to understand my headspace coming at critiquing The Mitchells vs. The Machines and negatively viewing its own take on a plot concept I ostensibly love by default. The problem, as said, is one of motivation. In The Mitchells, Rick’s dissatisfaction with his relationship with his daughter Katie is purely that: Dissatisfaction with their relationship. Katie herself is, by all accounts, doing spectacularly. She’s got a healthy relationship with friends and other family members, she’s gotten accepted into a prestigious film school, and her YouTube account seems to pull pretty keen numbers (With all the tech jokes in this movie it’s a wonder there’s never a riff on her shilling NordVPN or Raid Shadow Legends). The conflict between father and daughter is purely a case of them growing apart in her teen years demonstrably because Rick has no understanding of her current passions and makes no effort to do so, which leads to him having consistently questioned and doubted her ability to succeed in her field. The film frames the impromptu road-trip as his attempt to ‘fix’ the issues between them, but the only thing broken by the presentation of the story is Rick’s approach to parenting in the first place. He could easily have made Katie warm to him on the way out by replacing or paying for the laptop he broke and throwing her a subscription to her YouTube channel, but then the movie would be shorter and we wouldn’t be able to pretend the conflict was anything other than his own pursuit of self-centered actualization.

That’s the other issue, of course, the way The Mitchells vs. The Machines consistently rounds back to the point that Katie is somehow shouldering half the responsibility for the father/daughter communication breakdown. But as stated above, it really has hardly anything to do with her. Katie’s succeeding on her own terms, and the only outreach she would theoretically need to do to her dad would be to make HIM feel better, something he could do himself if he’d only actually pay attention to the cool videos she keeps trying to show him and not constantly deciding that HE knows that SHE will fail. It’s a fundamentally one-sided conflict from what we’re shown, and yet the other members of the Mitchell family continuously treat Katie like she needs to accommodate her father’s personal whims and not hurt his feelings despite the fact that he’s the one who went behind her back and canceled her flight, even forcing her to miss her first week of college (!) simply because he felt sorry for himself that they didn’t like the same things anymore. Again, Katie’s doing great, it’s Rick that decides to make his problem the entire family’s problem, and while I’m going to hesitate to refer to this behavior as out-and-out abusive, it is still absurdly selfish and pointedly poor parenting. 

The movie seems to nominally strive for balance in the conflict, not making it entirely Katie’s job to fix her dad’s hurt feelings, and indeed having a whole sequence where he realizes what a Big Jerk he’s been about not trying to understand or support her passions, and resolving to actually Make An Effort moving forward. The problem is that this is still framed as one half of the equation, as Katie supposedly gets to understand where her dad is coming from, which...makes her feel better about all the times he said she would fail and so she should rely on and appreciate him more? And the reason that’s a fundamental issue is annoying, because it means we have to talk about Rick’s Stupid Fucking Cabin.

Look, I hate doing this. I personally try very hard to keep in the mindset that stories are stories and things happen in them because they are stories. I am loathe to attempt picking apart the points of particular plot points, but the problem is that this Stupid Fucking Cabin is positioned as the heart of the humanity of the entire movie, yet it hinges on a sequence of decisions that no actual human being would ever come by. First off, do you have any idea how long it takes to BUILD a home like that, let alone as one guy apparently doing it himself? Rick spent the better part of his twenties building this big Fucking Stupid Cabin to fulfill his lifelong dream of ‘Living in the woods’, only for his wife to get pregnant once it was finished, leading to him just dropping like that? Was there no planning in this family? Was Katie an accident that Rick immediately was this endeared to? I mean, he totally seems like a pro-lifer. But then why do they need to sell the Stupid Fucking Cabin on account of a kid coming along? How were Rick and Linda planning on living out their lives there if not with resources that could support them as well as a kid or two? Rick could have just raised his kids in the woods in his Stupid Fucking Cabin and they would have stood a better chance at turning out like little duplicates of himself and his own interests like he clearly wanted. That’s to say nothing of this sequence of events being framed as a ‘failure’, despite that fact that Rick handily succeeded at what he set out to do, only to turn around and abandon the thing he succeeded at himself on seemingly the same sort of impulsive whim that leads to him dragging his whole family on a road trip because he doesn’t understand YouTube. There are motivating factors to these decisions he made that could inform the whole context of this supposedly tragic backstory, but we aren’t privy to anything resembling them, and the result is a plot point that seemingly only exists to make Katie (and the audience) feel bad for Rick in the third act of the movie.

The real answer is the ultimate assertion of this thing by the finale, that Katie should be ‘grateful’ to Rick for his ‘sacrifice’ of his dream that supposedly allowed her to be in the place she is now. Except Katie had no part in Rick’s bizarre impulsive choice to build a Stupid Fucking Cabin then sell it as soon as a kid popped out so he, I guess, could feel some sense of important familial contribution. That’s to say nothing of the point about parental figures who make grand, sweeping gestures nominally for the good of their kids, but are effectively and emotionally unavailable in the day-to-day engagements of their lives. Because unlike Goofy in A Goofy Movie, Rick isn’t actually doing what he’s doing for Katie’s sake. Her motivation for most of the movie is to move away from home and go to college, a completely normal-ass thing that children do. Any of Rick’s outreach or efforts to ‘fix’ relationships and situations are purely for the sake of his own hurt feelings, and the way Katie’s mother and brother consistently push her into going along with them only highlights the overt way this whole family’s problems are hung up on the insecurities of of this single stubborn jerk. But then, that’s my other major misgiving with The Mitchells vs. The Machines: Its expected exaltation of the default biological family as some hallowed unit for which it is a tragedy to fall into any degree of dysfunction. This is with pointed dismissal towards the idea of Found Family, seen as a distraction, an obstacle to Katie realizing who her TRUE people are, and coming around to a sense of fulfillment because she managed to massage her dad’s ego for long enough that he stopped being totally dismissive of the things that brought her joy. You see, Found Families are fun, but they aren’t REAL or SPECIAL because they already accept and appreciate you for who you are, unlike these people you’re biologically obligated to share living space with for 18+ years whom you have to forge bonds with through varying degrees of communication breakdowns and compromises in self-agency.

With all that in mind, it highlights some of the smaller issues in the movie’s setup as well. This is perhaps petty, but jeez was I annoyed with the film’s framing of The Mitchells as this ~craaaazy~ ~weeeeiiiird~ family which included such outlandish quirks as ‘Dad who doesn’t understand technology’ and ‘Young boy who really likes dinosaurs’. And the wishy-washy tone of the familial conflict is echoed in the ‘The Machines’ part of the plot, which mostly led to me sitting on edge throughout the whole film as I wondered how it was going to come down on the subject of those kids and their darn smartphones. It ultimately doesn’t go full anti-technology, which makes sense given how much of Katie’s character revolves around using the stuff, to say nothing of the predilections of the people who actually, uh, made this movie. But the most it can manage is a halfhearted “Maybe unregulated big tech bad?” which even then is undercut, mostly I assume because of the various big tech companies involved in producing and streaming this thing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m overall glad it doesn’t go full "durr hburr technology is bad fire is scary and thomas edison was a witch", but a lack of any insight or ideas on that front means that the familial relationship element is the only conceptual element it really has to stand on, and I just spent over 1800 words breaking down why that fundamentally didn’t work!

It’s an aggravating situation, because lord did I want to love The Mitchells vs. The Machines. It’s gorgeous, it’s got some clever bits in the writing, and it can honestly sling a punchline like nobody’s business, there are some KILLER jokes in there. But it just became impossible all the way through the end for me to engage with the heart of the movie, its central connective conflict, on the terms it wanted me to. Now it’s admittedly possible that, perhaps like Rick Mitchell, that’s my problem. I’ve seen a lot of love for this movie from my peers, and it does make me question my own projections: I don’t want to get TOO personal on main, but I admit that it’s entirely possible that people who’ve enjoyed an actually functional fatherly relationship would better engage with the emotive connections this movie wants you to make. But even with that caveat, I was able to find my own way to resonate with the similar stakes of A Goofy Movie just thanks to the more effective way that one was framed, so if this one couldn’t hook me, maybe it was The Mitchells vs. The Machines’ fault after all.