#perhaps i will make another post discussing their respective abilities

[crypticmoth-art]

I saw a post about your TMA OCs, they look so interestingg, please tell me more about them [if you want to lol] <3

Oh absolutely! I love talking about my OCs! I shan’t bore you with all the details, as I do have quite a lot on them.

The three in question are originally from a TMA OC cosplay tag on Tiktok set in Regency era Britain before the Magnus Institute was established.

My Terminus avatar, Cassius Sallow, is a funeral furnisher and cabinet maker, both trades inherited from his father. He met Beckett Hurst, the person who would become his lifelong partner (in friendship, romance, and crime) when he accompanied his father at a young age to oversee the funeral of Beckett’s late mother. The two hit it off splendidly, and Beckett’s grief-stricken father, a man of great stature, insisted that Cassius and Beckett continue each other’s company.

Into their teenage years and early adulthood, Cassius prepared to take over his father’s business while Beckett became a student of medicine at Guy’s Hospital. The two also became Resurrectionists, disinterring graves to sell to surgeons and anatomists (which led to them experiencing the horrors).

With that last bit tying into Beckett’s untimely death! Beckett is actually a manifestation of Cassius’ End-aligned abilities, but whether he is actually a ghost tied to Cassius, or a manifestation of Cassius’ memory or delusions is unclear.

The third character is my Lonely avatar, Yves Ainsley. He’s a well-off barrister who is presently in a relationship with Cassius and Beckett (very Lonely to be in an active relationship with a dead man). I don’t have as much lore on him yet, because he’s the newest of the trio, but he owns a house in Soho, with all the rooms either empty or the furniture covered with sheets.

Much to his chagrin, he does keep himself integrated into high society, attending the occasional dinner party, and even rarer, hosting his own. His attendance of social events is not for his enjoyment, but to observe candidates that he can single out for the Lonely.

At some point, he became attracted to Cassius due to his subjected Loneliness surrounding the death of Beckett.

I have quite a bit more on them, but I think I’ve dumped a lot already and don’t want to bombard you!

[brucewaynehater101]

As someone who is partly deaf, I love that deaf Tim stuff. But hear me out for something that could work for either of them. What if on complete accident when both the Bats and Rouges hear about Tim's disability, the Rouges are the ones who do a better job with not looking down on Tim. Yes they add things to help him, like for Deaf Tim Joker would also use ASL as he monologs to make sure that Tim can understand him or with Blind Tim Riddler makes puzzle rooms themed around telling the difference in textures or he reads all the riddles out loud.

Meanwhile the Bats are. They *tried* ok? But they keep over compensating because they worry about Tim. Unlike the Rouges who don't pull their punches, during training the Bats do start pulling punches and going a little easier on Tim. Dick keeps trying to do things for Tim that Tim knows he can do. Bruce keeps taking him off cases that involve in person investigation. Damian keeps saying things about how all tasks should be left to him because clearly he's the superior one (if it's early Damian, later on when they're on better terms he wouldn't be as assholish about it but also keeps trying to take over tasks for Tim)

I'm really really glad that you vibed with the AU.

As far as your additions, I 100% agree. Having "good intentions" for people can still be harmful and frustrating. That's why, in these AUs, Tim tries to hide his disability until he's able to prove his efficiency. It's dealer's choice whether the Bats choose to acknowledge the evidence or are still doubting his capabilities.

I think the fic from the OG post has a scene where Babs, Cass, and Tim meet up to discuss the microaggressions they face from the Bats due to their respective disabilities. The sequel definitely has cute interactions between Damian and Tim. Damian refuses for anyone to treat his "rival" as weak or incapable. Peak siblings energy.

The funny part I find about this would be the Rogues accommodating Tim's disabilities just so they can defeat him. If Joker learned ASL for Tim, he'd probably research the hell out of how to look intimidating and scary while doing it (since, depending on Tim's hearing loss, Joker can't effectively utilize the vocal tone skills he's trained to be terrifying). Riddler would treat it as another puzzle and mental exercise (his Riddles would likely increase in accessibility for multiple disabilities as time progresses. He wants to challenge folks by their thinking abilities, not by their ability to test within the constraints placed on them. Perhaps, after his research and new implementations, he even starts targeting schools that unfairly places confines on their students [from both a socioeconomic standpoint and from improper accommodations]).

Anyways, I would love a fic that highlights some of the Bats' treatment of Tim and how not to interact with folks of different disabilities. Stuff like infantilizing, doing tasks for the person without permission, assuming what someone can handle, and disregarding them. It'd be cool to watch Tim try open communication (asking boundaries and what level of assistance the person desires) with all of them. For some, that's all that's needed. They have a clear guideline of "that shit was not okay" and the lines of communication are open for them to ask clarification in the future. For others, they listen to Tim, agree to change, and still pull that shit. I personally vote for Tim getting petty.

I feel like Babs and Cass would be the ones to understand the most that Tim can do anything he sets his mind to (he's so incredibly stubborn that he'd probably even be able to steal LexCorp from Luthor if he was motivated enough. He most likely even has plans already drawn for it ready to implement at any point). Duke would probably understand how others' perceptions of Tim affect him.

I also kill for Tim utilizing WE resources to bring aid and accommodations based on more specific audiences (such as how kids in the foster system, LGBT youth, and those with disabilities [both mental and physical] disportionately make up the homeless population).

I'm rambling a bit because sociology is a passion of mine. I'd get a higher education on the subject if I had the money.

Anyways, I love considering such perspectives in fanfiction. Let me know if there's other stuff I should add to this AU!

[autistichalsin]

I have very complicated feelings about Halsin's Drow brothel dialogue that I want to share. I want to say, immediately, that I am not telling any other survivor how to feel about this, because we all have our own experiences that affect how we feel about this, and I will ask that you show me the same courtesy. I have had past posts of mine met with rudeness- from questioning whether I really had seen the scene in question to someone accusing me of having a "fetish" for rape recovery- telling me "go do Astarion's storyline instead"- to someone saying "the entire concept" (of trauma recovery, I guess?) is "western nonsense". Do not do that on this post.

The most common statements made as criticisms against Halsin's scene, post patch 5* are the following:

*Pre-patch 5, most of the criticism was about how out of left field it is and how there was no ability to follow up with Halsin about it/ask if he's okay.

It's OOC (or at least just nonsensical) for Halsin; he's a big, strong, wise Archdruid, so it makes no sense that he was raped.

Halsin obviously healed completely from his Drow-related trauma offscreen, and any statements from the player questioning this are condescension and/or infantilization and/or the same as demanding Halsin go through therapy onscreen- demanding all survivors have the exact same cookie-cutter reaction to be "valid".

The presence of the one rude "sounds traumatic, you may need to reflect on that" line means the entire scene is condescension as well.

Halsin's trauma isn't actually trauma/Halsin doesn't count as representation because it was not put in the story in good faith/was a joke, and it's insulting to change the scene to be more serious.

By changing these lines, the creators have prioritized one group of fans (those who wanted to see Halsin discuss what happened to him as an assault, not as a "fond memory") over another (those who felt this conversation was an indication Halsin had already had a complete recovery).

Gently and respectfully, I don't agree with any of these arguments. My feelings on these, point by point, are:

Rape can and does happen to anyone. Quite the opposite of being OOC for Halsin, it's important to have Halsin as representation alongside Astarion, to show that big, strong men can be victimized too, by any gender. Victimization can happen to a wide range of people, be committed by a wide range of people, and can have a wide range of effects on the survivor.

I love healed survivors, and I would love to see more in fiction. However, Halsin never once came across like a healed survivor to me, in this scene or otherwise. He came off like someone deep in denial (or perhaps just crisis mode) who was victim-blaming himself to downplay it. He called his rapists "hosts", himself a "guest, prisoner, and consort", himself a "foolhardy young Druid". Those are worrying ways to describe being made a sex slave for three years. I personally can't imagine how we were supposed to hear that repeated denial/downplaying/use of euphemism and infer healing from that. If that was truly what the writers intended, I think an exchange to the effect of "are you okay?" "Yes, it was a long time ago, and the wounds have healed" would have been acceptable- it's weird to think that wanting to be able to talk to Halsin after that and ask if he's okay is the same as "demanding he go through therapy for us" to some folks.

That one line isn't the best or most sensitively phrased, but it is HARDLY unique in that respect; there are many moments where your responses to delicate situations are awfully callous instead, even your "nice" ones. (See: immediately after Wyll gets his horns, where your nicest option is "The Blade of Frontiers has some explaining to do." No "oh my gods, are you okay? Are you in pain?") The lines following the nasty option include some wonderful choices (and a few callous ones, as per usual); "It's not for me to say- I wasn't there. But I'm here now, if you wish to talk," for example, which leads to Halsin thanking you and explaining that he hasn't had anyone to confide in for a very long time. Also, the offputting "you may need to reflect on that" option isn't the only way to get to the following lines; a Seldarine Drow, for example, can offer empathy by telling him he threaded the needle by surviving Lolth's pitiless followers at all. Sometimes, a writer's abstraction of situations like these can be really hard, and sometimes writers for dialogue trees fail to anticipate the responses players will want to give. (I.E. not foreseeing that players might want to sound less judgmental to Halsin's recovery, or that players' first concern will be with Wyll's wellbeing in the aftermath of him growing horns, not anger at his "dishonesty".) I would like alternatives to those callous responses, sure, but I don't think they imply bad intentions. Occam's razor and all that.

The truth is that we will never conclusively know what the intentions were behind the original version of that scene. However, in following with Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best one, and it is almost always simpler to assume good intentions than to assume malice. With the care this game showed to rape, slavery, and other issues in the rest of the game, I find it much easier to believe that there was just bad conveyance of Halsin's past than I do that it was intended as a meanspirited joke against sexual assault survivors. Even if it was intended as a meanspirited joke, quite a lot of people had already found comfort in Halsin's character. There is no un-ringing the bell, so the best alternative was to improve the writing to address fan concerns.

Truthfully, any decision made could be argued to be prioritizing one group of fans over the other; if they had kept the status quo, they would have been prioritizing the group of fans who liked Halsin's downplaying of his trauma. Ultimately, Larian has shown that they enjoy making changes to the game over time (sometimes over the objections of fans, I.E. Gortash's letter); if they truly felt the true vision of their story was the original version and they felt it important to stick with it, they would have had no problem ignoring those fan complaints. Hell, one of THE most common complaints about Halsin is regarding his polyamory (especially from Early Access fans on the forums, who are quite vocal about feeling betrayed that Halsin isn't monogamous), and Larian has kept him poly because it is how they intended him to be. Larian didn't change Halsin's post-Drow scene solely because of fan outcry- they changed it because they wanted to. They have no problem keeping unpopular characterization beats and scenes in the game. If it were really a matter of "fan outcry = changed scenes" there would be an evil ending epilogue by now too.

Those are just my thoughts on the issue. I am leaving this untagged out of respect for other survivors who may not agree, but please feel free to reblog or comment- as long as discussion stays respectful.

[robinwithay]

robyn's top/bottom/sub/dom azicrow analysis or Nobody Asked: The Post

so. i think it makes the most sense, thematically, for Aziraphale to be a sub(ish) bottom, and Crowley to be a dom(ish, service) top.

a bold claim, perhaps, i grant you. hear me out.

i'm gonna start by saying that ultimately, i think they are both very capable of switching - i just believe they also both have strong preferences. also that this is just my opinion, and i'm not trying to attack anyone in particular or piss anybody off by making this post. i'm writing it for fun, feel free to ignore it.

let's get something straight, shall we? top, bottom, dom and sub have NOTHING to do with the way that you look or move. nothing. zip. zilch. nada.

being a top, a bottom, a dom or a sub, and indeed the ability to switch between and combine any of those, are all in your personality and dynamic(s) with your sexual partner(s), and even sometimes whether you are physically able to take a particular role. your body type and look can contribute to those dynamics if you participate in certain gay subcultures, but even then, it isn't exactly set in stone.

there are implications to topping/bottoming in terms of angel and demon characters specifically, i think. there is duality in both; topping can be seen as dominating, subjugating and taking, but it can also be a selfless act of service, of giving, even of worship. bottoming, likewise, can be seen as lazy and self-indulgent, letting the focus be on you and your pleasure, or it can be seen as passive and innocent, an inactive role. it's probably worth mentioning that it's usually in cishet sex that topping is seen as taking and bottoming is seen as passive, and the opposite in queer sex. obviously, A+C are undeniably queer as fuck, no matter your headcanons.

considering Aziraphale and Crowley's characterizations, where they generally align with what you expect of an angel and a demon but also rebel against those expectations in their own way - Aziraphale being a hedonist, bastard angel and Crowley being a kind, moral demon - i think it fits best for Crowley to be the selfless one, and Aziraphale to be the one indulged. this is also what we're shown is their dynamic canonically, as well.

Aziraphale likes to be rescued, Crowley likes to be his rescuer. Aziraphale passes over the opportunity to do something good and selfless, something that a demon would otherwise have no reason to do, to Crowley every time he gets himself in trouble, and how intentional that is is another discussion entirely. he loves to be the damsel in distress, and we have no idea how long that's been going on, really - how long he might have been doing that just for an excuse to see Crowley before realizing that Crowley liked it, too. that's getting into the weeds of speculation a little bit, but based on what we see in the show, the fact remains that Aziraphale indulges Crowley in his fantasy of being a protector while he is vulnerable and swooning.

i have no doubts whatsoever that Aziraphale is actually capable of rescuing himself, but that's not the point - it's one of their rituals. it's a scene. Aziraphale textually acknowledges the fact that he likes to be taken care of, and that he knows Crowley likes to take care of him, in S2E5 - "rescuing me makes him so happy!"

we all agree he's Anthony J. "Acts of Service" Crowley, right? why would that not translate to the bedroom?

i think this also relates to their respective purposes given by Heaven and Hell. we know Aziraphale is made as a guardian, a warrior, a fighter with a flaming sword. as an angel, Crowley is a creator, a studious inventor, and then as a demon, he is the tempter, a sssneaky sssnake who uses words and manipulation; someone who uses brains over brawn, either way.

in their relationship, Crowley and Aziraphale allow one another to shed these given roles and embrace the opposite of their purpose. Aziraphale was MADE to fight, it's what Heaven expects of him (he's expected to fight in the war at Armageddon, after all) but he's...soft. he gave away his sword out of selflessness and refuses to fight in the war, openly dislikes conflict, violence and tbf, exercise as well. Gabriel calls him soft in s1 and appears to be referring to his physicality; regardless of the fact that an angel probably shouldn't particularly understand or care about human beauty standards, Aziraphale seems to feel some guilt about the fact he's soft, both physically and mentally. it's not what he was built for, but he also clearly likes the way he is - he could change it, but he doesn't. he likes to be soft, a creature of comfort. it just doesn't gel with what Heaven made him for.

(as an aside, i think this is part of the reason that the widely-accepted headcanon that Aziraphale is secretly very fit and buff bothers me, personally.)

but because Crowley loves him, it's alright. Crowley in his role as protector takes the responsibility of being that strong warrior Aziraphale is supposed to be away from him, says "it's okay that you're not what Heaven made you for, you don't have to be. i'll do it for you." and in return, Aziraphale allows Crowley to be something a demon is not supposed to be - a hero of the story, a saviour. Aziraphale IS fiercely protective of others, still, especially humans, so this is arguably also Crowley saying "you protect everyone else, but who's protecting you?"

Crowley isn't physically strong either, but he doesn't have to be to protect Aziraphale. Aziraphale clearly has so much faith in Crowley's ability to think and talk his way around a problem, to put those devilish smarts to good use. again, in S2E5, he says "Crowley will be back in a moment, he will have a plan."

this swapping of roles, to me, supports the idea that they would also swap roles when it comes to sex. Aziraphale is indulged, Crowley indulges him.

i think fandoms have a problem - well okay, they have a lot of problems actually - but the problem HERE is the knee-jerk reaction that expectations MUST be subverted.

sometimes expectations don't need to be subverted, sometimes tropes exist for a reason. it can in some cases even be actively unhelpful, disregard authorial intent and clear characterization to attempt to subvert tropes via headcanon. i see this issue A LOT as a masculine lesbian; masculine sapphic characters are often softened and feminized ("they secretly love makeup and fem things") by fandom because it makes them more palatable, under the guise of subverting expectations. that's not to say that there aren't masculine sapphics who do like traditionally feminine things, of course there are, but when i see it happen repeatedly to masculine sapphic characters, it starts to form a disconcerting pattern. there is nothing wrong with masculine sapphics who like feminine things - i am one myself - but nor is there anything wrong with masculine sapphics who fulfill every stereotype and expectation in the book.

i, unfortunately, often find myself thinking the same thing about Aziraphale and Crowley. don't get me wrong, the GO fandom is very different from others i've been in, and a lot of the fluid gender representation i see in the fancontent here is absolutely wonderful. unfortunately, i do still feel like i see a lot of railing against the idea that Aziraphale is how he is portrayed in canon; a soft, fat, feminine, perhaps sometimes borderline stereotypical pansy-esque gay man(-shaped being) who traditionally would also be assumed to bottom and/or sub, and force him to fit headcanons that frankly don't seem in-character at all or defy what we are shown to be the truth in canon, all in the name of subverting expectations.

i could honestly say more but i fear what i've said already is confusing enough so i'll stop there. if you get it, you get it, i guess, and please remember that i'm not trying to upset anybody here. i sort of half-joked about making this post and a couple people actually showed interest in reading it, so i wrote it!

don't even get me started on how i think Aziraphale is a brat, i have the receipts

anyways, i'll leave you with the Word Of Sheen;

[emtheanxiousdragon]

So I read Thief in ThunderClan and all the comments people make about the ableism within it… I figured since I’m studying both English and Disability Studies, I could make a fairly informed statement on this.

I’ll preface this by saying that I doubt the Erins think as deeply about this as I’m about to, but let me talk. I also got inspired by a random set of tags that I can’t remember.

Within modern disabled circles, the key cultural value is that disabled people retain worth, even if they cannot contribute to society. The problem readers point out with TiTC (need the c to avoid issues) is that the story focuses on disabled people contributing to society, even in small ways. Multiple characters worry they lack value without service, fears which are not answered by saying the statement is utterly false, but by saying that they can serve in some capacity. It shifts the focus from worth despite ability to finding ways to serve how you can. This shift makes it feel like the characters believe “useless” disabled cats have no worth.

However! I think it is important to consider some facts about the series and disability rights in our world. To start, disability civil rights is simply not as popular as women’s rights, racial rights, religious rights, or LGBTQ+ rights. It simply isn’t. As a result, the general public isn’t aware of a lot of important trends in the community, such as the separation of disability from usefulness and identity. Basic Google searches can still direct them to older and outdated articles which focus on finding purpose within community. They should do more research, but we can extend some empathy regarding a lack of popular knowledge.

Next, the only characters in Warriors who think of disabled cats as worthless without usefulness (excluding villains and hated characters) are those who are disabled. When they struggle to pursue the occupations they want, they experience issues of self-worth. This is a normal response! Few people want to do nothing of importance to their community, and these characters want to contribute in a way they enjoy. It makes sense for a young character to fear going to the elder’s den because they want to do things with their lives. Characters who comfort them go for the obvious solution of pointing out ways they can contribute to their homes.

That’s the next big thing. The “all for one, one for all” attitude discussed in TiTC is central to Clan identity. The Clans are a survival culture. Their small populations have to continually work to provide food and security for one another. As a result, being able to pull a bit of your own weight is very important. Every member of the Clan needs to find a balance between their individual talent and capability and the support of their Clanmates. Otherwise, cats can die. Brightheart is chastised not for being lazy but for taking on too much. For the Clans, warriors need to find the balance.

And then again, if cats aren’t able to contribute in these important ways, they aren’t thrown aside or seen as worthless. The value of the sick and elderly is a key tenet of Clan life! The elderly are disabled, all old people are. The role of the elder is meant for those who cannot serve the Clan, outside of perhaps telling stories or giving advice, regular old people stuff. They are respected cats. This respect is often framed around past work, but that is the nature of their society. It’s kind of weird that they have to bury the dead, but that’s not the focus of this post.

Yes, the Clans are horrible at allowing disabled characters to find their own place in the Clan rather than forcing them into a place. Cats who want to work as warriors are forced into the elder’s den or the medicine den. The fact that they have to constantly prove their usefulness unlike other cats is wrong. It is a missed opportunity that the authors don’t acknowledge this, and it contradicts many of the points made here. However, for TiTC to say that disabled people are still able to contribute to society and find worth in their work is far from the biggest sin of the authors. The response makes sense for the characters and their culture and isn’t a terrible response. After all, many disabled people find they can still do rewarding activities that are seen as useful to their community, even if those activities aren’t major.

If the Erins really dove into this concept, the disabled world of Warriors would be richer and more thought-provoking.

[sharkrocket]

Shark… Burda but one of them is a mermaid… Mermaid AU…

OKAY me and my partner have been tossing around some ideas, and here are some of the thoughts we came up with (we are running on fairy tale logic)

Scenario where Artemy is merfolk and Daniil is a human:

Started thinking about a merfolk society that would hold the megalodon with the same reverence as the aurochs -> Shark Artemy

I know there's folklore and stories about how consuming the flesh of merfolk can either grant immortality, extend human longevity or have extraordinary healing abilities

Perhaps a certain researcher by the name of Daniil D. Dankovsky, whose goal is defeating death, is interested in these claims and goes to visit a remote fishing village that's rumored to have merfolk sightings

Do they really exist? Is it just stories? Some people claim to have seen them, some people think THOSE people have never seen a big fish before - Everyone has their own opinions about it

Has Simon eaten merfolk flesh? Is he the reason why Daniil knows about this?

A couple different things can happen at this point

One possibility: Artemy has the ability to walk on land and turn back to merfolk in contact with water but needs to return to the water after a certain amount of time before he becomes severely ill

(Maybe he's half merfolk, half human? Haven't established the details on how this would work but there's a couple of good scenarios here)

Would integrate into town society and mingle among the land people while taking note of which people posed a threat to the merfolk

He could simply warn the other merfolk of the danger, OR find the threat and eat him (thinking about this made me laugh, but it might not be the most practical or reasonable thing to do)

So when a stranger comes into town asking about merfolk and immortality, Artemy takes a VESTED interest

Introduces himself to this researcher and tries to get a feel for his intentions, and maybe fuck with him a little

"Oh yeah, I've seen merfolk before, real ugly creatures. They've got huge bug eyes, long limbs like a spider with pincers at the end and they only speak in a series of clicks and whistles interspersed in an interpretive dance" and Daniil is furiously writing all this down

But who is this handsome guy that was so adamant on introducing himself to Daniil? His skin glistens with water, his hair is dusted with flecks of dried salt, and he seems awfully knowledgeable about the sea.....

Maybe he follows Artemy around to see what his deal is, because there's something not quite right about him....

But for some reason, right when he's tails Artemy he turns a corner and the man disappears, save for a tiny ripple in the nearest body of water....

We haven't quite banged out the specifics of their relationship but there was a particularly good mental image of Daniil catching Artemy in half shark form face deep in a creature, eating its innards with blood dripping down his face and chest and Daniil just being very normal about it

This post is STUPIDLY long, more under the cut

Another possibility:

Artemy befriends this new stranger and they get closer, exchanging knowledge about their respective expertise

Eventually, after much discussion and trust built between the two, Artemy divulges details about himself, revealing he is a merfolk

Daniil's true objective isn't revealed until after Artemy has made himself known

Betrayal of some sort ensues, and trust between them is destroyed

Daniil has a difficult decision to make

Some of the potential outcomes for these scenarios:

Daniil becomes merfolk and joins Artemy to experience its wonders (not 100 percent sure how this would work, but I enjoy the possibility)

Daniil locks away Artemy and steals him away, while the ruling families ruin everything

Artemy offers flesh from his tail/fin out of love or spite and Daniil can choose to take it and leave, or stop him and tend to his injury

Daniil and Artemy fend off the ruling families, regain trust in each other and Daniil chooses to stay to continue his research

Scenario where Daniil is merfolk and Artemy is a human (sorry this one is much shorter, the details for this one were much harder to bang out 😔):

Eel Daniil.... Eelniil..... The snake imagery was too tempting, maybe one day we'll be more creative with this (oarfish was very funny to think about)

Most likely born as a merfolk in this scenario

Motivating factors: Perhaps he wants to explore the surface and the world of man and see what discoveries are to be had outside of the water (he no longer wants to dive below into the dark, he yearns to go up towards the light)

Perhaps some greater power in the sea wants Daniil dead and his best bet was to go somewhere where they couldn't follow....

Either way, his curiosity gets the better of him and he ends up getting captured (whether intentional or not)

He gets trapped in a tank either for display or waiting to be sold to the highest bidder

Artemy's work puts him in close contact with Daniil (the nature of the work is unclear, I had trouble thinking of something fitting)

In either case, the relationship between them starts off antagonistic, Artemy goes to feed Eelniil and he bites his hand and swims out of reach with a smug smirk on his face

Eventually, Daniil starts asking a lot of questions about life on land and Artemy has some questions of his own so they strike up a form of comradery

Maybe they realize they're both trapped and they start planning a way to break out and escape....

Just some loose musings we managed to come up with, hopefully you enjoyed these thinky thoughts

[theohonohan]

Referential opacity and wikilinks

I like this section of a blog post about the ability to refer to a wiki page that doesn't exist—to mention it without having to create it:

If you’ve ever had a good wiki experience, you know what this feels like in practice. Groping towards an idea on one page you realize its relation to another page and quickly make a [[Bracketed Link]] or CamelCaseAssociation to pull that idea into your web. But most non-wiki environments frustrate this fluidity. They don’t want to know the name of the page — they want to know its location, which is like asking someone to give up using variables in their code and start addressing memory directly. It can be done, but it is going to kill your flow. What’s more, these frustrate one of the crucial features of wiki practice: they don’t let you link to pages that don’t exist yet. https://hapgood.us/2015/10/08/building-a-pseudo-wiki-on-tumblr/

The question arises of how to name the page you're declaring the potential existence of. A good name will hint at the topic if not define it completely. The worst name will be completely meaningless, when taken out of context.

Wikipedia has a couple of policies (1, 2) that deal with the related issue of piped links (links which display different text from the title of the page linked to). Piped links create flexibility, but also the risk of misuse. A piped link should not create an "easter egg" effect, or force the reader to engage in "mystery meat navigation". Both of the preceding phenomena involve the user not knowing what the link points to until they click it, or at least hover their mouse over it.

The Wikipedia style guideline called EASTEREGG is intended to discourage people from creating bad piped links, and is discussed in a section headed "Transparency". That word might imply that the concept referential transparency is involved, but it seems that the situation is not quite so simple.

Referential transparency is a property of a term's context, not of a term itself. Colloquially, in a referentially transparent context, terms with the same denotation can be freely interchanged. In a wiki context, this would imply that the link text could be freely substituted by any suitable term with the same denotation. English language phrases aren't generally referentially transparent, though.

The example that comes to mind is the phrase "John believes Kansas City is in Kansas". (Since Kansas City is in fact (mostly) in Missouri, John is mistaken). This sentence is not referentially transparent with respect to the term Kansas City. It's a referentially opaque context. Thus, we can't replace "Kansas City" with the words "the largest city in Missouri" without changing the meaning of the sentence. (Presumably, John doesn't believe that the largest city in Missouri is in Kansas). If the words "Kansas City" were a wikilink of the form [[Kansas City|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Missouri]], the link text "the largest city in Missouri" would in theory be acceptable, except for the referential opacity problem. So Wikipedia's injunction to use "transparent" link text doesn't actually have anything to do with referential transparency. It's a matter of intuitiveness and clarity. Needless to say, anyone editing a wiki page should attempt to link only from referentially transparent linguistic contexts; where the name (e.g. "Kansas City") is being mentioned rather than used, the only appropriate link is to a page about the name itself rather than about its denotation. On Wikipedia, it seems that, when a suitable page exists (one which discusses a word itself rather than its meaning), it is often a disambiguation page or a Wiktionary page. Exceptions include the pages on this list of example sentences.

Perhaps the original issue of referring to a non-existent page for the first time ("declaring" it) can cast some light on piped linking. Ideally, a piped link's alternative text could serve as the title of the yet-to-be-created page, even if it's not the most obvious title for that page. In other words, the piped link text should clearly have the same denotation as the ideal title. This is a less restrictive constraint than that imposed by a referentially opaque context, and indeed it sounds similar to the freedom granted by referential transparency. The presence of the extra stylistic restriction that piped links should really only amount to reformattings of the linked article's title means that referential transparency is not implicated. I think!

[chanoyu-to-wa]

Nampō Roku, Book 7 (65b):  Nambō Sōkei’s Kaki-ire [書入].

〽 Kaki-ire [書入].

    In this hermitage, as a matter of course [I liked to use my] trays with Chinese paintings [on their faces], even though they were old -- because they were in very good condition¹.

    The other day when [Ri]kyū, Jōrin, [and] Tanabe-ya [came for chanoyu] as [a group of] three guests, [I] brought out these trays along with [a set of] new bowls of Negoro [lacquerware]².  The far ends of the chopsticks and yōji [-- the ends that would come into contact with the food --] were wrapped loosely in paper [so they would not touch the surface of the old trays]³.

    [Ri]kyū was very moved by this:  “it is generally understood that bringing out antique trays is, without a doubt, something that should never be done -- this is what we, and the rest [of the tea community], have decided⁴.  Yet without [your] attention to this [one] detail, your abilities would not have been revealed⁵!  Handling things in just this way shows that [your careful consideration of this matter before acting] was far from shallow⁶.

    “Heretofore [I] had thought that [such antique vessels] should not be admitted [into the tearoom] -- and it is regrettable that [other] people have also neglected using trays of this sort⁷!  We should all learn from what we have seen here, and put it into practice [in our own chakai]⁸.”

    This is [an example of] why it has been said that we should [all] benefit from [Ri]kyū’s lucky happenstances⁹!

    Thereafter, [Ri]kyū also occasionally brought out [antique trays during his own gatherings]¹⁰.

   〚Always, in the case of old trays -- and this is also [true] with respect to individual meal tables [if they are antiques] -- it is appropriate for the chopsticks to be wrapped [in paper]¹¹.〛

_________________________

◎ Though the story of Nambō Sōkei’s use of his antique Chinese trays during the kaiseki, and the way his handling of the situation changed Rikyū’s views on the propriety of doing so may have some truth in it*, the story has been retold in a manner that represents another effort (on behalf of the Sen family) to validate their preferred way of doing things† -- by highlighting them in an account of a gathering that Nambō Sōkei hosted for Rikyū and his acquaintances, where Rikyū was so impressed by Sōkei’s violation of the traditional teachings that he subsequently began to imitate him in his own gatherings (which establishes the precedent for the Sen family’s use of trays when serving the meal, rather than oshiki).

    There are a number of (generally minor) differences between Shibayama’s version and what is found in the Enkaku-ji manuscript, and these will be discussed in the footnotes.  The toku-shu shahon version also adds one sentence to the end of the passage, and though I decided to include it in the above translation, it has been enclosed it in doubled brackets to make it clear that this information was not actually part of the original text.

    Tanaka’s genpon version‡, while apparently edited down from Shibayama’s version, omits about two thirds of the material.  As a result, the best course would be to translate his version separately (it appears in the appendix that will be found at the end of this post).

    The language indicates that the Enkaku-ji text was (at least) rewritten toward the end of the seventeenth century, with the other versions appearing in the middle, and near the end, of the eighteenth century.

    Needless to say, perhaps, in light of its promotion of practices that are still favored by the Sen family, this is one of the entries that Kumakura Isao chose to include in his “complete” modern Japanese version of the Nampō Roku (Nampō Roku wo yomu [南方録を読む]). ___________ *Chinese and Korean trays of the sort that could be used as oshiki, always seem to have either four small legs, or a raised foot that elevates the face of the tray several sun above the level of the floor, making them similar to an oshiki (according to period drawings, Chinese tables were lower than Western tables, rising to approximately lap height, with the person sitting cross-legged on a platform-like chair that was placed in front of the table -- rather than with his legs projecting under the table as in the West; Koreans, meanwhile, sat on the floor, either cross-legged or on their feet, like the Japanese).  But the present version of the text appears to reimagine them as Japanese-style trays (which lack such feet), so that the food bowls are essentially on the same level as the floor.

†To use a tray in place of an oshiki [折敷] -- and to then rename the tray oshiki; as well as to permit (or even encourage) the use of antique trays -- and subsequently other antique vessels (as implied in the “genpon” text) -- rather than newly made ones, when serving the meal.

‡I have not mentioned this recently, but Tanaka’s commentary always includes two texts for most of the entries in Book Seven -- the original Enkaku-ji material, followed by the passage as it was printed in what he consistently refers to as the “genpon” edition (even though that block-printed text, which was apparently an edited version of the text that is found in Shibayama’s toku-shu shahon, actually postdates Tachibana Jitsuzan’s Enkaku-ji manuscript by a full century).  While the genpon text has been translated in the appendix together with the relevant points from Tanaka’s commentary, Tanaka’s comments that relate to the Enkaku-ji material will be included in the footnotes that discuss that version of the text, below.

¹Kono-an ni ari-kitaru kara-e no bon, furuki-mono naredomo, ika ni mo kegarege-naki-bon ni te aru-yue　[コノ菴ニ在來ル唐繪ノ盆、古キ物ナレドモ、イカニモキタナゲナキ盆ニテアルユヘ].

    Kono-an ni [この菴に] is a reference to the Shū-un-an [集雲庵], Nambō Sōkei’s hermitage that stood in a sort of lane between the inner and outer gates of the Nan-shū-ji [南宗寺], in Sakai.  The tearoom that was usually used by Sōkei was a three-mat room, arranged as shown below (Ⓢ, ②, ③, indicate the places for the three guests -- with Ⓢ being the shōkyaku).  The meal was served through the kayoi-guchi [通い口], while the utensils for chanoyu were brought out and removed through the katte-guchi [勝手口].

    The Shū-un-an had been established by Sōkei’s predecessor, Giō Jōtei [岐翁紹禎, 1428? ~ 1522?], the illegitimate son of the great Ikkyū Sōjun [一休宗純; 1394 ~ 1481] (who seems to have been the posthumous son of the last king of Goryeo, being born two months after his death, and immediately sent to a temple to be raised -- and confined, in the hopes of averting a political restoration:  Ikkyū escaped to Japan during the Ming invasions, along with many of his compatriots, such as Shukō and Shino Sōshin and his son).

    The argument being set up is that this kaki-ire was written by Sōkei (even though the language is not his).

    Ari-kitaru [在り来たる]* means (to do something) customarily or habitually; (to do something) as a mater of course.

    Kara-e no bon [唐繪の盆] means trays with a Chinese painting on the face.  The painting could have been in colored lacquer (which would be the more durable, and most likely not to show any damage over time), or makie [蒔繪].

    The kind of trays available in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were usually painted with colored lacquer, and had been produced for the restaurant trade in China (as was the case with most of the lacquerware imported from the continent during that period) -- an example of which is shown above.  These kinds of trays usually had either four small legs attached to the bottom, or a raised foot, meaning that the things placed on the tray did not technically rest virtually on the floor (as is the case for the trays made for kaiseki in Japan that are used today).  The Chinese trays were designed so that they could be stacked up easily (again, something desirable in equipment produced for use in the restaurant setting).

    Ari-kitaru kara-e no bon [在來る唐繪の盆] means that Nambō Sōkei usually (brought out) these Chinese trays† when entertaining his guests for chanoyu.

    By the time this was written, Nambō Sōkei had already become a semi-mythical figure (even though at least one chashaku, kept in the tube that was made for it by Sōtan himself, was preserved by the Sen family, along with another that is kept in a tube made by Kawakami Fuhaku, one of Sōtan’s four closest disciples -- suggesting that he was not unknown to the Sen family), so it was probably for this reason that the Sen family felt comfortable appropriating him for their purposes -- since already almost nothing was actually known about him, or the way he practiced chanoyu.

    Furui-mono naredomo [古い物なれども] means even though (these trays) were antiques‡....

    Ika ni mo kitanage-naki bon ni aru-yue [如何にも汚気なき盆にてあるゆえ]:  ika ni mo [如何にも] means truly, really; kitanage-naki [汚気なき] means not (naki [なき]) shabby (kitanage [汚気]**), not dirty.  In other words, even though the trays†† were old, they were all in very good condition.

    Here, Shibayama’s version provides us with several additional, and extremely important, details -- regarding Sōkei’s state of mind:  kono-an ni ari-kitaru kara-e no bon, furuki-mono naredomo, ika ni mo kitanage-naki-bon ni te, ryōri no toki dashite kurushigaru majiki to omoi [此菴ニ在リ來ル唐繪ノ盆、古キ物ナレ共、イカニモキタナゲナキ盆ニテ、料理ノ時出シテ苦カル間敷ト思ヒ].

    Ryōri no toki dashite [料理の時出して] means when (the trays) are brought out during the service of food....

    Kurushigaru majii to omoi [苦しがるまじいと思い]:  kurushigaru [苦しがる] means to complain (about something that is painful or distressing‡‡); majii [まじい] means should not (do something); to omoi [と思い] means so (I) think.  So kurushigaru majii to omoi would mean “(I) do not think that there should be any problem about (using these old trays when serving the meal).” __________ *This is an Edo period idiomatic usage.  As with many of these forms, they tend to defy linguistic analysis.

†While bon [盆] (tray or trays) could be either singular or plural in the Enkaku-ji version, the toku-shu shahon and genpon texts make it clear that there were at least three trays -- one for each guest (apparently to be used in place of an oshiki).  Sōkei’s way of serving the meal will be described later.

‡Probably more literally, “even though they were old pieces” -- though the point is that Sōkei treasured these trays, and so wished to make use of them when serving his guests.

**Once again, we must remember when this entry was written.  Today, the word kitanage [汚気] is usually used to mean air pollution, bad or fetid air.

††Notice that these are specifically called bon [盆] (trays), rather than oshiki [折敷].  Oshiki, as explained in the previous post, were originally small tables, and only “became” trays (though keeping their earlier name) at the insistence of the Sen family (in the interests, they argued, of modesty and simplicity, particularly in the cramped space of the small room).

    Their rejection of the fuchi-daka as a way to serve the meal (though this is actually even simpler -- and though the Sen family continued to use Rikyū’s own fuchi-daka, even in the small room, albeit to serve kashi) is difficult to understand -- unless we remember that Shōan and Sōtan were followers of Imai Sōkyū’s machi-shū style of chanoyu, and Imai Sōkyū and his adherents preferred the banquet-style of kaiseki that Jōō was serving during his middle period.  This is the only explanation.  And when it was subsequently pointed out to them, they proceeded to vilify the practice, insisting that the banquet-style was the only acceptable way to do this -- despite the fact that Rikyū apparently did otherwise.

‡‡The purists held that antique utensils should not be used when serving the meal.  This argument was based on the yin-yang of the gathering:  the shoza is yin, so yang utensils (new objects are yang) should be used when serving the meal; the goza is yang, so yin utensils (old objects are yin) should be used to serve the tea.

    These ideas of yin and yang were brought to Japan from Korea during the first decades of the Edo period, and have had a great impact on the theory and philosophy of chanoyu from that time down to the present.

²Itsuzoya, Kyū, Jōrin, Tanabe-ya, san-kyaku no toki, ka no bon ni atarashiki Negoro no shu-wan ni te dasu　[イツゾヤ、休、紹林、タナベヤ、三客ノ時、カノ盆ニ新シキネゴロノ朱椀ニテ出ス].

    Itsuzoya [いつぞや = 日外] is a classical expression that appears to have gained a certain currency toward the end of the first century of the Edo period.  It has been replaced by the more usual aru-toki [ある時] in the toku-shu shahon and genpon versions of this entry (perhaps because itsuzoya was no longer considered chic).  Itsuzoya means “sometime (last year),” “at a certain time (during our vacation);” by extension, “the other day*.”

    Jōrin [紹林] refers to Tate-ishi(?)† Jōrin [立石紹林; his dates of birth and death are unknown].  All that is known about Jōrin is that he seems to have been a chajin from Sakai, who apparently was initiated into the practice of chanoyu by Jōō (as attested to by his name).

   According to Book Two, Jōrin was a guest‡ in Rikyū's tearoom on the twenty-sixth day of the Twelfth Month of Tenshō 14 [天正十四年十二月廿六日] (which was February 4, 1587), together with Konishi Settsu-no-kami Yukinaga [小西行長], Oribe [織部], and Imai Sōkyū [今井宗久]; and in the Rikyū chanoyu sho [利休茶湯書], and the Hyak-kai ki [百會記], Jōrin is recorded as having been the sole guest at a chakai that Rikyū hosted for him on the fifteenth day of the Eleventh Month of Tenshō 18 [天正十八年十一月十五日] (1590).

    Tanabe-ya [田邊屋] seems to be a reference to a machi-shū chajin (?), but he has not been identified.  Members of the Tanabe-ya were active in cultural circles (apparently the house was involved with the shu-in-sen [朱印船] -- Red Seal Ships, the shōgunate-licensed shipping -- and the import of drugs, pharmaceuticals, and other luxury goods from south-east Asia) during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and they claimed the founder of their house was Tanabe-ya Matazaemon [田邊屋又左衛門; his dates are unknown], who appears to have started this firm circa 1604 (in that year he was issued a permit by Tokugawa Iemitsu to handle the import of goods through Luzon, in the Philippines), so this reference could not predate him.

    This may simply be an example of picking a random, albeit well-known, name from the popular consciousness, and working it into the story to enhance its credibility.  Since there are certain vague references that suggest that Tanabe-ya Matazaemon lived a decade or more past the middle of the seventeenth century, he was probably a rather young man in 1604, so the connection with Rikyū and this incident has to be considered tenuous**.

    Kyū, Jōrin, Tanabe-ya, san-kyaku no toki [休、紹林、田邊屋、三客の時] means on an occasion when Rikyū, Jōrin, and Tanabe-ya were the three guests....

    Ka no bon ni atarashii Negoro no shu-wan ni te dasu [かの盆に新しい根来の朱椀にて出す]:  ka no-bon ni [かの盆に] means on those trays; atarashii Negoro no shu-wan [新しい根来の朱椀] means new Negoro bowls of the red†† variety; ni te dasu [にて出す] means (these bowls) were brought out (on the Chinese trays).

    Here, once again, Shibayama’s toku-shu shahon provides us with some very important, information -- regarding the way that Sōkei supposedly served the meal to his guests:  aru-toki, Kyū, Jōrin, Tanabe-ya san-kyaku irasshai no toki, ka no bon ni atarashiki Negoro no shu-wan ni te, han-dai sabaki no yō ni bon san-mai kasane, sono ue ni wan wo san-gu nosete dasu [或時、休、紹林、タナベヤ三客入來ノ時、カノ盆ニ新敷根來ノ朱椀ニテ、飯臺サハキノ様ニ盆三枚重ネ、其上ニ椀ヲ三具ノセテ出ス].

    This means, “on a certain occasion when [Ri]kyu, Jorin, [and] Tanabe-ya came as [a group of] three guests, on these trays new red Negoro bowls [were used]:  in the manner of using a han-dai, the three trays were stacked on top of each other, and brought out with three sets of bowls resting on top.”

    To understand this version of the text, the first requisite is an understanding of the han-dai [飯臺] and its use.  A han-dai is a kind of Korean fixed-leg table, of the sort shown below.

    The size was variable, but most are roughly 2-shaku x 1-shaku 5-sun; and they have a slightly raised rim (to prevent the chopsticks, or spills, from falling onto the floor).  When used during a chakai, the han-dai was either placed in the dōko, or else (in a room such as the Shū-un-an, which did not have a dōko) brought out through the kayoi-guchi, at the beginning of the meal service.  It was then placed more or less in the middle of the room.  

    After putting the han-dai in place, the host took out a towel and wiped the table.  Then, while the host went back to the katte, the guests would move forward, taking their seats around the table (which could seat no more than four guests, one on each side).

    The host would return with a nagabon, on which were an appropriate number of sets of eating bowls, one for each guest (and sometimes one for himself as well, if there was room at the table), along with chopsticks and a yōji [楊枝] (= kurmoji [黒文字], pointed sticks with which the kashi will be eaten at the end of the meal) for each.

    Each set of bowls consisted of an empty, rather shallow, soup bowl in which a covered bowl of rice‡‡ was resting (the kind of bowls used during Rikyū’s lifetime are shown above***, though according to this text they were, on this occasion, red rather than brown:  the lid of the rice bowl is shaped like a saucer, which is why it was not only used to drink sake, but additional lids could also be used as a dish for serving vegetables later during the meal -- the droplets of steam on the underside of the lid are why the hiki-hai [引き盃], “sake saucers,” are still splashed with water even today).  One set of bowls was offered to each guest, along with a pair of chopsticks, and a yōji; the guest separated the bowls in front of his place, moving the soup bowl to the right, and then lifting the rice bowl to sit on its left.

    Meanwhile, the host, having returned to the katte, would bring out a metal nabe [鍋] (a shallow metal pot, usually with an overarching handle and a spout, shown below -- Japanese nabe were usually cast-iron, while Korean nabe were made of bronze), a towel, a spoon-like ladle, and a small pot of mustard paste, on his nagabon.

    Starting with the shōkyaku, each guest would hand his empty soup bowl to the host, who would first place a scoop of vegetables into the bowl, and then pour miso-shiru in through the spout.  After wiping the rim of the bowl with the towel, the bowl was returned to the guest.  After all had received their bowls of soup, the pot of mustard paste was place on the table, so the guests could season their miso-shiru according to their individual preferences.

     Returning to the katte with the nagabon, the host would bring out three dishes of cooked vegetables (originally, a least, served on three additional rice-bowl lids) -- one raw (namasu [膾], a mixture of slivered or shaved daikon and carrot, dressed with a mixture of soya, rice vinegar, and mirin), one boiled in broth (the ni-mono [煮物]), and one grilled (yaki-mono [燒き物]) or deep fried (age-mono [揚げ物]), along with a pouring vessel (a chōshi [銚子], sake-tsugi [酒次], or tokkuri [德利]; Rikyū’s sake-tsugi is shown above) of sake -- and the guests would drink two servings of sake, from the lids of their rice bowls, while eating the namasu.  Then they would continue their meal in private (unless the host had decided to join them†††)

    The following sketch shows the personal space available to each guest (the crosshatched rectangles), with the three communal portions of vegetables (served on additional rice-bowl lids) in the middle -- in the manner of meals served in a temple.

    Later, when he feels that the guests are finishing their meal, the host will bring out a dish of tsuke-mono [漬物] (pickled vegetables), arranged on another lid, along with a nabe containing water that had been boiled in the rice-cooking-pot (this dissolves the rice that had burned onto the bottom of the pot during the cooking process, though this also makes a tasty gruel), to conclude the meal.  The thin gruel and tsuke-mono permit the guests to finish satisfying their hunger, while also allowing them to clean the insides of their bowls

    After the meal, a bowl of kashi should be brought out, so that the guests can clean their palates.

    How this way of serving the meal on a han-dai would be applied to the present text is as follows:  Nambō Sōkei brought out the three Chinese trays (a representative example of the kind of 1-shaku square trays available in the sixteenth century, is shown on the left), stacked one on top of the other, with three sets of red Negoro bowls (an empty soup bowl with a lidded bowl of rice resting inside), chopsticks, and yōji, on top of the stack of trays (as in the drawing on the right -- while I have imagined that the yōji were enclosed in the same covers with the chopsticks, some commentators have argued that they were wrapped separately, though the text does not clarify things one way or the other‡‡‡).

    Sitting in front of Rikyū, Sōkei put the stack of trays in front of him, and then lifted off the upper two.  Then, after wiping that tray with a towel, Sōkei presented Rikyū with his bowls, chopsticks, and yōji.  He then moved on and did the same with the other guests.

    Then he returned to the katte and brought out a nabe of miso-shiru, and served this to each guest in turn.  Namasu would have been brought out next, probably in individual bowls, together with a vessel of sake.  After serving each guest two portions of sake, Sōkei would have brought out a bowl of boiled vegetables, and another vessel containing grilled or fried food, placing them in the center of the table so that the guests could help themselves.  This would have been followed, in time, with additional rice, pickled vegetables, and boiled rice-water.  And finally kashi****. __________ *Itsuzoya [日外] -- or nichi-gai or jitsu-gai, as the compound is pronounced today -- literally means outside of, or beyond (the confines of) today.  At present, the accepted nuance appears to be at one time, some time ago, once -- though the context of this entry seems to demand something closer to the time of writing.

†This is the most likely pronunciation for his surname.  Other possibilities include Tachi-ishi, Tateshi, Tateiwa, and Tatsuishi, and it is not possible to know which of these Jōrin may have preferred.

‡Rikyū's records indicate that Jōrin was the last guest.  In light of the status of the other three individuals, it seems that Jōrin may have acted as Rikyū’s hantō during this gathering.

    Unfortunately, no other details connected with Tate-ishi Jōrin have come down to us, so nothing more can be said about him.

**There is mention of a Tanabe Shirōzaemon [田邊四郎左衛門; his dates have been lost, though he is known to have died before the end of the sixteenth century] as having lived during the sixteenth century.  While, in some accounts, Tanabe-ya [田邊屋] is abbreviated to Tanabe [田邊 = 田辺] (and used as if it were an ordinary Japanese surname, rather than a ya-gō [屋號]), and while it was also common, during the period, for people to change their personal names (such as when embarking on a new enterprise), no other details beyond Shirozaemon’s name have been recorded -- and, with his having died at least several years before Matazaemon’s creation of the Tanabe-ya firm (this was documented by the Tokugawa bakufu), they could not be the same person.

††Technically, shu [朱] is an orange-red color -- the color shown in the photo of the Negoro bowl that was included in the previous post.  Shu bowls, in addition to the black marks that come from polishing down the outer coat of lacquer, are often painted black inside (without any rub marks, to make them appear cleaner).  Aka [赤], the other word for red, refers to a darker, brick-red color.

    It is unclear when shu-colored Negoro-ware first appeared, but it seems that the Negoro lacquerware available during Rikyū’s period was red (aka [赤]), without any black markings, at least when new (the irregular black markings appeared naturally, as a result of the red coat of lacquer being slowly worn away as a result of use over the course of many years -- Negoro-ware was originally produced for use in temples, where the bowls would continue to be used until the lacquer had deteriorated to the point where the bare wood was being exposed, meaning they were no longer safe for use); the color shu [朱], along with the rubbed-down effect that reveals irregular patches of black here and there, seems to have made its first appearance during the Edo period (shu -- “cinnabar” -- was common on certain Chinese varieties of lacquerware, and these may have inspired the Japanese craftsmen to attempt to reproduce the color on their locally manufactured products).  Thus, this use of shu-colored bowls on a Chinese painted tray may reflect late seventeenth century sensibilities, rather than the kind of things that were done during Rikyū’s day.  The idea of contrasting colors and effects in this way was an important aspect of Edo period “tori-awase” (selecting

‡‡The rice bowls contained one portion of “shaped rice.”  This means rice that had been measured out into appropriately sized portions using a mossō [物相], a kind of measuring device that (in Rikyū’s period) was shaped like a tall cookie-cutter (formed from sheet copper) with a matching wooden plunger. 

    The purpose of the mossō was to insure that each person received an identically sized portion of rice -- and the portions were generally large enough to satisfy most people (in some of his writings, Rikyū states that additional rice should be offered only when the guest list includes young people, since they will still feel hungry after eating a portion that would fully satisfy persons of a more advanced age).

    While the original mossō were round, by Rikyū’s day more fanciful shapes (maple leaves, old pine trees, cherry blossoms, bottle-gourds, the quarter moon, and so on) had become common -- a number of these shaped mossō were excavated from the site of the mizuya in Rikyū’s earlier residence (in the Ima-ichi area of Sakai near the Nan-shū-ji), showing that he used them -- even though most of the modern schools like to claim otherwise.

    The modern practice of giving each guest a small spoon of rice (taken from the rice-cooking-pot with a bamboo rice-scoop) appeared during the Edo period, and has no historical validity -- at least in so far as Rikyū is concerned.

***The most common style of bowls seen today, where the lids are smaller versions of the bowls, is based on the sets of bowls that Korean monks typically carried with them when they visited another temple or went on a pilgrimage.  These bowls (which usually number between four and six, though there can potentially be even more) nest one inside of the other, with the whole set fitted with a single lid.

    These sets of eating-bowls were wrapped in a cloth and carried in the monk’s bag (or, in earlier times, tucked within the futokoro of his robes).  When it was time to eat, he brought out his own bowls, and used them when helping himself from the large pots of cooked rice and soup, and the other things offered during the meal.  The smallest of the bowls was used as a tea cup -- though occasionally there is an even smaller bowl that was used for soya or whatever other dipping sauce was offered with the meal.  Such bowls are called ōryō-ki [應量器] in Japanese, or bal-u [발우 = 鉢盂] in Korean (this compound is pronounced hatsu-u in Japanese).  Both words are said to be derived from the Sanskrit word pātra [पात्र], which means a copper eating (or drinking) vessel -- a bowl or cup used for eating or drinking.  Notably, these bowls have gotten much bigger in recent times (and the monks commensurately fatter) -- so much so that it would be impossible to carry a set in the futokoro (without looking like a heavily pregnant woman) -- the relative size of the modern sets of bal-u is made clear by the photo on the left.

    Though this is not entirely clear from the historical records, it appears that bowls of this sort were first used by Sōtan, in the early Edo period.

†††In keeping with the fact that the han-dai was used in the temple, when serving food to the higher monks in their private cells, it was part of the etiquette that the host also partake in the meal together with his guests, if space allowed.  This is why, on occasions when a han-dai will be used, it was the custom to limit the guests to three persons.

‡‡‡If the kashi were served while the trays were still in the room, there would be no reason why the chopsticks and yōji could not be wrapped together.

    But if the kashi would only be served after the meal trays had been taken back to the katte, the guests would presumably have to keep their yōji safe somewhere, so it would be clean and ready to use when the kashi-bachi was brought out.  If they immediately slipped the yōji into their own pack of kaishi, there would be no reason that it would have to be wrapped separately (and this is the situation I imagined -- because it was the rule then, as now, that guests should always carry a pack of kaishi in the futokoro of their kimono); but if it were otherwise, the yōji would have to be wrapped separately, so that it could be slipped into the right sleeve, to keep it safely for later -- since one wrapper would have to be used to wrap up the chopsticks after the meal was concluded.

****The kashi are not dessert.  Their purpose is to clean the palate.  Kashi were served in a bowl, and the guests used the previously provided yōji when eating them.

    Rikyū, as was mentioned in the last post, used his fuchi-daka (of the size usually seen today) to serve the meal in bentō-style, not for kashi as is done nowadays.  (When eating from a fuchi-daka, the guest would pick it up and hold the box above his lap -- much as people do when eating from a bentō today.)

    When two different varieties of koicha were going to be served during the goza, a second kashi for each guest was prepared and placed in a lidded vessel in the toko -- for them to eat after drinking the first kind of koicha.  On such occasions, Rikyū had a smaller set of fuchi-daka (the boxes of which measured 4-sun square) that he used to serve the kashi.  The little boxes were stacked up in the toko, with one yōji for each guest placed on the lid.

³Hashi to yōji no saki-no-kata, kami ni te zatto-tsutsumite dashi-kereba　[箸ト楊枝ノサキノ方、紙ニテザツトツヽミテ出シケレバ].

    Hashi to yōji no saki-no-kata [箸と楊枝の先の方] means the far end* of the chopsticks, or yōji -- that is, the end that come into contact with the food.

    Kami ni te zatto-tsutsumite [紙にてざっと包みて] means to wrap (the end of the chopsticks and yōji that touches the food) loosely in paper† -- to keep that end clean.

    Dashi-kereba [出しければ] means if (the chopsticks and yōji) are brought out (with one end wrapped loosely in paper)....

    Tanaka, in his commentary, adds that the paper should be retained, and used to wrap the same end of the chopsticks afterward -- to protect the tray from being defiled‡. __________ *The chopsticks and yōji are considered to be extensions of the hand and fingers, so the far end is the end that comes into contact with the food.

†This is similar to what is done in most restaurants today.  The way to fold the paper wrapper -- out of a single sheet of kaishi -- would vary depending on the feelings of the host.

    In his commentary on this entry, Tanaka Senshō recounted the following story:

“Concerning the way the chopsticks are brought out with the end wrapped in paper, this made me recall that, in the Higashiyama area of Kyōto, on the grounds of what had been the villa of the Torio shōgun (Torio Koyata [鳥尾小弥太; 1848 ~ 1905]), at the Ittoku-an [一得庵], there lived a man called Hori Tatsuya, who was famous for his cooking.

    “On a certain occasion, I was invited to a chaji [by Hori Tatsuya], together with the abbot of the Kennin-ji [建仁寺], Takeda Mokurai rōshi [竹田默雷老師; 1854 ~ 1930].  On that occasion, the meal was served to us on a han-dai.  The dinner sets were given to each person;” 

[as I described in the previous footnote] 

“and the ends of the chopsticks were wrapped in paper that had been folded in the shape of a noshi.

    “I felt it was a very interesting way to do things, since it [kept the chopsticks] truly pure -- such were my thoughts at the time.”

    According to the Hō-ketsu zu-setsu [包結圖説] -- an Edo period treatise on the way to fold paper for various purposes (such as for use as noshi [熨斗] wrappers) that was published in 1764 (based on a manuscript that had apparently been circulating privately for several decades, making its history curiously similar to the Nampō Roku) -- the paper would be folded as shown below, according to the simplest of several styles (which would be suitable for chanoyu, since an excessively elaborate way of folding the piece of paper would possibly strike the guests as prideful and smug -- the purpose, after all, is just to keep the end of the chopsticks and yōji clean).

     The paper is creased as shown on the left, and then pressed into the shape shown on the right.  A wrapper similar to this, folded from a piece of kaishi, is what is intended by this text.

    A sketch in a student-oriented periodical from the Meiji period, Hana yakana jo-gakusei no tanagokoro [華やかな女学生の掌], below, depicts several other variations that would be suitable as wrappers for the chopsticks and yōji that could be used in chanoyu.

    Possibly the chopsticks and yōji were wrapped loosely in paper in this way because they would be handed to each of the guests separately, rather than already resting on his oshiki or meal-tray as was usual.  The chopsticks and yōji would be enclosed in the same paper wrapper.

    And, of course, even simpler ways of folding a piece of kaishi into a suitable wrapper could be employed -- since the point is to prevent the ends of the chopsticks and yōji that will touch the food from coming into contact with the (potentially unclean) face of the old tray.

‡Since the original reason give for prohibiting the use of antique vessels during the meal was because they are uncleanᵃ, it is of paramount importance that the guests do nothing that will make the tray “dirty” while they are using it. __________ ᵃSince most of these vessels would have always been used for serving food (that was what they were made for), it seems the idea was that, in those days before the appearance of things like dish-washing liquid, simply rinsing the vessels in water after use would not remove oils and other contaminants.  As a result, eventually the build-up would be such that it could render the tableware unsafe for continued use (this is why pottery covered with a crackle glaze was avoided, because oils and other contaminants could infiltrate into the clay body through the cracks, and eventually this would turn rancid) -- such issues would have been even more of an issue on the continent, where pork was commonly consumed; but even in Japan, even vegetarian meals will eventually leave some traces of oil on the lacquerware, and this will result in their being disqualified from further use, since there was no way to clean them properly.

    In Korea this problem was partly resolved by scouring the vessels with fine sand (that is why metal dinnerware was traditionally preferred over both pottery and lacquerware); but, of course, such treatment could not be used with lacquerware.

    The reason why the chawan and chaire can continue to be used, after many decades or even centuries, is because even if the tea infiltrates into them, it does not go rancid.  On the contrary, once the tea permeates these utensils, they become better -- because the earthy taste of new pottery is lost.  (And, in point of fact, in the early days -- following the Korean custom -- the chawan was also replaced once the crackles became notably stained.  It was only the chaire that was treasured in this way, for the reason just stated.)

⁴Kyū hanahada kanji tamai, furui-bon ni te dasu-koto ha kanarazu mu-yō to no mi warera nado ha omoi-sadamete　[休甚感シ玉ヒ、古キ盆ニテ出スコトハ必無用トノミ我等ナドハ思ヒサダメテ].

    Kyū hanahada kanji tamai [休甚だ感じ給い] means Rikyū was extremely moved (by the way Sōkei had handled the matter of wishing to use his antique trays when serving the meal*).

    Furui-bon ni te dasu-koto [古い盆にて出すことは] means “(since) with respect to the question of bringing out antique trays (for use when serving the meal)....”

    Kanarazu mu-yō to nomi warera nado ha omoi-sadamete [必ず無用とのみ] means “unquestionably (such trays) cannot be used, and only that (understanding of the classical teaching is possible)....”

    Warera nado ha omoi sadamete [我等などは思い定めて] means “we, and everyone else†, have taken this to heart‡.”

    Shibayama’s text for this statement is the same as what is found in the Enkaku-ji manuscript. __________ *If Sōkei had simply arranged the soup and rice bowls, and the muko-tsuke, on the trays and brought them out, one by one, in the usual manner, his behavior would have seemed objectionable, since he would simply have been flaunting the generally accepted rules.

    But by bringing the trays out in the manner he had done, and then borrowing from the han-dai procedure -- which, of course, was another case where the meal was being served on something that was not a newly-made oshiki (han-dai were mostly Korean tables that had been used in temples for decades or centuries, with many of them having been brought to Japan in the fifteenth century by the monks fleeing the political persecution of Buddhism that was overwhelming the peninsula in tandem with the Ming invasions to restore the monarchy, thus the han-dai were inherently old, and respected precisely because of their historical associations:  using the han-dai when serving the kaiseki mirrored the way that the han-dai had been used in the temples) -- was another matter entirely.  Because Sōkei’s first action was to wipe the tray with a towel, meaning that he was ritually purifying the antique tray in a way that would gainsay the traditional objections (which was that old vessels were not supposed to be used because they were inherently unclean).

    In other words, it was Sōkei’s way of dealing with the situation that so impressed Rikyū (who, in his own modifications and innovations, had a particular penchant for repurposing old temae to answer new needs and purposes); and it was probably this that brought him to question, and ultimately overrule, the traditional prohibition against the use of antiques in the meal service even (according to this text) in his own practice.

†Warera nado [我等など] seems to mean we (warera [我等]) -- that is, the three people present in the room as guests -- and all of the others who are not present (nado [など]) -- the rest of the tea community.

‡Omoi sadameru [思い定める] (omoi sadamete [思い定めて] is past tense) literally means to come to a firm decision in one’s heart; to have an unshakable conviction (to upholding something); to be unshakably determined (to do something); to be resolved (to a course of action) -- and so forth.

    Thus, what Sōkei has done is challenge these guests to the very foundation of their being.  This is the monumental conundrum at which the text hints.

⁵Ten-ge nakari-shi ni, saku-sha no hataraki ni ha moruru-mono naku　[點氣ナカリシニ、作者ノハタラキニハモルヽモノナク].

     Ten-ge [點氣 = 点気], if that is even the proper pronunciation, is problematic, since there seems to be no evidence of this expression ever having been used, apart from this entry.  Shibayama suggests that it might be a miscopying, or a locally used slang term*; Tanaka and Kumakura both avoid any discussion of this term, and simply work around it to make their explanations conform with the argument that author of the entry itself seems to be making.

    The way the word is used suggests the meaning “the attention or focus to the details;” “the mind behind this point.”  If that is so, then ten-ge nakari-shi ni [點氣無かりしに] would mean “if you had not expressed (your) mind through the details....” or “without your attention to this detail” (of wrapping the chopsticks and yōji in paper so they would not come into contact with the surface of the tray)....

    Saku-sha no hataraki ni ha [作者の働きには]:  saku-sha [作者] appears to be referring to the person who perpetrated the action (i.e., Nambō Sōkei himself)†, while hataraki [働き] would seem to mean Sōkei’s abilities, his skill (at bringing this overt violation of the proprieties off successfully by wrapping the chopsticks and yōji in paper) -- since it was only this action that caused Rikyū to relent, and ultimately revise his opinion of the proprieties.

    Moreru-mono naku [漏れるものなく]:  moreru [漏れる] means to leak out, escape -- referring to both physical things (such as gas, water; and also to sounds, such as a conversation that is so loud that it can be overheard by people who are some distance away), as well as to intellectual matters (i.e., secrets leaking out).  Moreru-mono [漏れるもの] would mean something that can leak out, something that is revealed; moreru-mono naku [漏れるものなく] would mean nothing could leak out, nothing could be revealed.  In other words, Sōkei's true ability or skill at chanoyu would not have been revealed without his prescient attention to that one detail‡.

    Curiously, the sentence in Shibayama Fugen’s toku-shu shahon reads ten-ge nakari-shi ni, saku-sha no hataraki ni ha moruru-mono nari [點氣ナカリシニ、作者ノ働ニハモルヽ者也] -- in other words, the final word is nari [也] (something is, to be), rather than naku [なく] (is not, does not exist).

    While at first glance this version would seem to contradict what is found in the Enkaku-ji manuscript, the meaning turns on the word moreru [漏れる] (to leak out, to reveal).  So this version would mean “if you had not paid attention to that detail, (the level of) your skill would have been revealed” -- in other words, had he not wrapped the chopsticks and yōji in paper, this would have made his ignorance (of the prohibition against the use of antique vessels during the kaiseki) obvious, so Rikyū would have rejected his use of the trays, and taken him to task severely for doing so. ___________ *I have seen nothing comparable in any of the writings from Rikyū’s period -- so if it was slang, it would have been the slang of the late sixteenth century (which, of course, is when this entry was written).

†This is a very odd way to refer to Sōkei.  It almost appears as if the author of this text was intentionally downplaying (or refusing to acknowledge) -- or completely ignorant of -- the actual relationship between the two men.  That would be incredible, since the purported author was supposed to be Sōkei himself.

‡Sōkei clearly understood the convention that old vessels should not be used to serve the meal.  But he also realized that this prohibition was because it would be almost unavoidable that a patina of oil and grime had not come to coat the surface of old trays over the years (since, without appropriate solvents, it would have been impossible to clean the trays without also damaging the lacquer).  Nevertheless, because the trays did not look at all dirty (the contaminating coating would make the lacquer appear dull), he could be fairly certain that they were, in fact, quite clean.  Nevertheless, he chose to wrap the chopsticks and yōji in paper just to be sure -- just to assure the guests that these eating utensils would come into their hands absolutely clean and pure, despite the fact that the tray on which they were resting was old.

    It was this action that so impressed Rikyū.

⁶Kayō ni mochiirareru-koto koso asakaranu-koto nare　[カヤウニ用ラルヽコトコソ淺カラヌコトナレ].

    Kayō ni mochiirareru-koto koso [斯様に用いられることこそ] means “exactly the way you have handled (the trays) in this way....”

    Asakaranu-koto nare [淺からぬことなれ] means “it is not shallow.”

    In other words, Rikyū is complementing Sōkei by acknowledging that he recognizes that Sōkei did not use the trays on a whim.  Rather, he had come to understand that Sōkei had clearly thought about this deeply, carefully, so the result of his effort was nothing less than moving.

    Though Shibayama's version begins with a nonstandard form of kayō [加様]*, the meaning notwithstanding is the same. __________ *One thing that never ceases to astonish me is that the people who forged these texts did not even bother to try to write them in period-specific language.  They just scribbled down whatever nonsense they wanted -- and sometimes it really seems that the weirder it was, the better (since obfuscation and dissimulation were clearly important to their methods) -- and stuffed them into the wooden chest, without giving the matter a second thought.

⁷Ima-made hairanu-mono to omotte, hito ni mo utsu-yaritaru bon-domo no oshiki-koto ya　[今マデ入ラヌモノト思テ、人ニモ打ヤリタル盆ドモノヲシキコトヤ].

    Ima-made hairanu-mono to omotte [今まで入らぬものと思って] means “before now I believed that (antique trays) were things that should not be admitted (to the tearoom)....”

    Hito ni mo uchi-yaritaru bon-domo no oshii-koto ya [人にも打つ遣りたる盆どもの惜しいことや] means “it is regrettable that (other) people also neglected these trays!”

    Here Shibayama's text has ima-made hairanu-mono to omoide, hito-bito ni mo uchi-yaritar bon-domo no oshiki-koto nari [今迄入ラヌ物ト思ヒテ、人〻ニモ打遣リタル盆共ノ惜キコトナリ].  

    Omoide [思い出] means to remember (something) from the past -- “I recalled (that these things should not be admitted).”  Omotte [思って] means I thought about (something) -- “I thought that these things should not be admitted.”

    Hito-bito ni mo [人々にも] means “people also (neglected such trays)” (in other words, it is absolutely plural), while hito ni mo [人にも] could be either “(that) person also (neglected such trays)” (singular), or “people also (neglected such trays)” (plural).  However, both versions would have to be translated “people also (neglected such trays)...” because there is no logical reason why Rikyū would have been singling out one specific -- though unnamed -- individual.  It was a general refusal to use antique trays that he was referencing.

    Consequently, these changes have no impact on the meaning -- especially in English.

⁸Ai-kyaku no shū mo kore wo mi-naraite mochii-tamae　[相客ノ衆モコレヲ見ナラヒテ用玉ヘ].

    Ai-kyaku no shū [相客の衆] means the whole group of (my) fellow guests (because Rikyū is still the speaker)*.

    Kore wo mi-naraite mochii-tamae [これを見習いて用い給え]:  mi-narau [見習う] means to learn (by observation), emulate (what has been seen);  mochii-tamae [用い給え] means to please put (it) to use, please put (it) into practice.

    Rikyū is saying that not only was he personally impressed by Sōkei’s use of his antique trays, but that he recommends the others to take this to heart, as an example that should be emulated in their own tearooms†. __________ *This is a little strange.  Apparently the author forgot that there were only a total of three guests.  Ai-kyaku no shū, while saying nothing about actual numbers, certainly implies that there are a fairly large number of guests (or interlocutors) -- in other words, this is, of course, directed at the readers, rather than the other two guests who were present in the room on this occasion.

†In other words, the usual interpretation is that they should begin to make use of antique utensils in their own kaiseki.

    Of course, once the dam of convention had been breached, there would be no stopping it.  So, while this episode only considers the use of antique trays (as substitutes for the oshiki), it would not be long before all of the utensils used to serve the meal would be antiques.  And then, inevitably, anyone who presumed to use new utensils would be looked down upon, whispered about, and ultimately marginalized and then ignored by the fashionable set -- which is exactly the way that chanoyu evolved over the course of the Edo period, and remains so into the present.

    But I wonder if this is the whole of Rikyū’s meaning -- because Rikyū was impressed not by the antique trays in an of themselves, but with the way that Sōkei used them -- since it was just that way of using them that shattered the taboo, that rendered the previously-regarded unclean trays pure, so that they could be used during the meal.

⁹Kyū no yoki-koto wo narai-sōrō to mōsareshi　[休ノヨキコトヲ習候ト被申シ]*.

     Kyū no yoki-koto [休のよいこと] is very difficult to express in English.  Here, yoki-koto [良いこと] means something like a good chance, a lucky opportunity.

     In other words, Rikyū had always believed that using antiques during the meal service was forbidden because they were inherently impure.  Yet on this occasion, his beliefs were challenged by Sōkei’s thoughtful example of how this might actually be done.  This proved to be a startling revelation, one that shook his entire system of beliefs -- and finally brought Rikyū to conclude that the traditional restrictions were overly broad, and so should be reviewed on a case by case basis.

     Narai-sōrō to mōsareshi [習い候うと申されし] means “it is said that (we) should learn from (Rikyū’s example).”

     In other words, what occurred during this chakai was a piece of luck for Rikyū, and we are being urged to benefit from his experience as well.

    Shibayama’s toku-shu shahon has simplified the final verb:  Kyū no yoki-koto wo narai-sōrō to mōshi [休モヨキコトヲ習ヒシト被申シ].  This would mean “(I) suggest that (we) can learn from Rikyū’s wonderful experiences” -- with Sōkei apparently being the speaker, who is addressing his remarks to posterity†. ___________ *In his quotation of the Enkaku-ji text of this entry, Tanaka’s version adds nari [也] to the end of this sentence -- Kyū no yoki-koto wo narai-sōrō to mōsareshi nari [休ノヨキコトヲ習候ト被申シ也].  But this has no impact on the English meaning.

†Even though the collection of documents that Tachibana Jitsuzan reworked into the Nampō Roku were written purely for Sōkei’s own personal edification, without any thought that they would ever be shared with anyone else.

¹⁰Sono ato ha Kyū ni te mo tabi-tabi dashi nari　[其後ハ休ニテモ度〻出シ也].

    Sono ato [その後] means thereafter -- that is, on future occasions.

    Kyū ni te mo tabi-tabi dashi nari [休にても度々出しなり] means “from time to time Rikyū also brought out (antique trays).”

    This statement is vague, perhaps intentionally so.  The meaning seems to be that Rikyū began to use antique trays when serving the kaiseki, though how he did so is left completely uncommented upon.  Did he, for example, imitate Sōkei’s way of bringing the trays out stacked one on on top of the other, with the rice and soup bowls on top, and then passing them out in a manner resembling the way the meal was served on a han-dai?  Or did he simply use his antique trays as if they were newly made oshiki, with the bowls of rice and soup, and a dish containing the muko-tsuke, and the hashi and yōji*, arranged on them in the way things are done today, with each guest’s tray being brought out separately from the katte?  Unfortunately, this critical question is not answered in the text -- and, if one reads the commentaries that discuss this entry, it appears to have been totally ignored by everyone† as if such things never occurred to anyone. __________ *Fortunately -- at least if one is interested in following the precedents that were established in this entry -- the question of wrapping the chopsticks and yōji in paper is resolved in the next footnote (the text of which, regrettably, is not found in the Enkaku-ji manuscript -- meaning that in that source the uncertainty, when using antique trays and tables, is complete).

†With the general assumption -- perhaps beginning with Tachibana Jitsuzan himself -- being that the trays were used as they are now.

    Unfortunately, the chanoyu practiced at the time when the commentators were writing invariably seems to have informed their interpretations of the text.  No serious attempt has ever made, in the history of Nampō Roku scholarship, to view or consider things in the light of their historical context -- indeed, most scholars appear to act in the belief that chanoyu in their day was exactly the same as it was in Rikyū’s period.  The implications of which are devastating, at least if the purpose is to understand Rikyū’s chanoyu as it truly was when he was alive.

¹¹Furuki-bon ni ha itsumo mei-mei zen ni te mo hashi ha tsutsumite shikaru-beku nari　[古キ盆ニハイツモ銘〻膳ニテモ箸ハ包ミテ可然也].

    This sentence is found only in Shibayama Fugen’s toku-shu shahon (and in Tanaka Senshō’s genpon version of the Nampō Roku).  The question of whether or not the chopsticks and yōji should be wrapped in paper when using an antique tray or table is left unresolved in the Enkaku-ji text.

    Furui-bon ni ha itsumo [古い盆には何時も] means “every (you are) using old trays....”

    Mei-mei zen ni te mo [銘々膳にても] means “and also in the case of (antique) zen*....”

    Hashi ha tsutsumite shikaru-beku nari [箸は包みて然るべくなり] means “it is appropriate that the chopsticks should be wrapped (in paper).”

     The meaning is that whenever the meal is served on an antique tray or table, the chopsticks should always be wrapped in paper -- so they do not come into contact with the old object†. __________ *Zen [膳] are traditional Japanese meal-tables, of the sort shown below.  Zen are much taller than oshiki, and elevate the bowls to the level of the diner’s lap (or even slightly higher), meaning that the person can eat without having to bend forward significantly.

    As the sentence implies, one zen was provided for each guest (and, in the case of a multi-course meal, such as during a court banquet, when one course was finished, the entire zen was taken away and replaced by a new one, on which the next course had been laid out).

†Out of the traditional fear that old vessels that have been used when serving food can not be truly clean.  Wrapping the chopsticks and yōji in paper insures that the end that will come into contact with the food never touches the old surface, so it will be absolutely clean.  This is the point.

==============================================

❖ Appendix:  Tanaka’s Genpon [原本] Version of  this Kaki-ire.

〽 In this hermitage, [I] had a habit of using [certain] trays [that were decorated with] Chinese paintings:  even though they were old, these trays were neither dirty, nor did they show any sign of wear.  [I usually] brought [them] out during the meal, since [I] thought there was nothing about them that would make [the guests] feel uncomfortable¹².

    On one occasion, after Rikyū had arrived, [I] brought out the three trays for the three guests in a stack, on top of which, in the manner of the way a han-dai is handled, were the three sets of bowls [for the guests]¹³.

    The chopsticks were on the far side [of the trays], wrapped individually in paper; and if the yōji were also wrapped separately when they were brought out [at the conclusion of the meal], that would be even better¹⁴.

    In the case of antique trays, as a rule -- and this is also true [when] individual meal tables [are used] -- it is better for the chopsticks to be wrapped [in paper]¹⁵.

_________________________

¹²Kono-an ni, ari-kitaru kara-e no bon, furuki-mono nare-domo, ika ni mo kitanage-naki-bon ni te, ryōri no toki ni dashite kurushigaru-majiki to omoi　[コノ菴ニ、在來唐繪ノ盆、古キ物ナレドモ、イカニモキタナゲナキ盆ニテ、料理ノ時ニ出シテクルシカルマジキト思ヒ].

    Kono an [この菴], as mentioned above, is a reference to Nambō Sōkei’s Shū-un-an.

    A drawing of the floor-plan of the Shū-un-an was included under footnote 1, above.

    Ari-kitaru kara-e no bon, furuki-mono nare-domo, ika ni mo kitanage-naki bon ni te [在り來る唐繪の盆、古い物なれども、如何にも汚気なき盆にて] means (I) usually brought out these trays with Chinese paintings (on their faces) since, though they were antiques, they were not dirty or worn.

    Ryōri no toki ni dashite kurushigaru-majii [料理の時に出して苦しがるまじい] means when they were brought out during the mealtime, there was nothing distressing about (them) -- nothing that would disqualify their being used while serving the meal.

    In other words, even though the trays were old, they were in very good condition, so Sōkei felt that they did not really contravene the rule that only new vessels should be used to serve the meal.  These trays were not damaged, nor did they show any sign of wear, and neither were they coated with food oils or grime of any sort.  The lacquer had no scuff marks or scratches, and was clean.

¹³Aru-toki, Kyū no iri-kita ni, san-kyaku [h]e dasu ryōri-bon san-mai, kasane no ue ni, handai-sabaki no yō ni, wan wo san-gu　[アル時、休ノ入來ニ、三客ヘ出ス料理盆三枚、カサネノ上ニ、飯臺サバキノヤウニ、椀ヲ三具].

    Aru-toki [ある時] means on a certain occasion....

    Kyū no iri-kita ni [休の入来に] means at or upon the arrival of Rikyū....

    The implication seems to be that Rikyū arrived later than the other guests, making them wait.  Consequently, the gathering only began once he had arrived and entered the room.  While this would have gone against his own teachings, this is the way that important teachers routinely behaved during the Edo period (and after) -- thus the wording would only have confirmed the status quo, rather than produce confusion among the readers.

    No mention is made regarding the identity of the other two guests (as they are unimportant to the story)*.

    San kyaku [h]e dasu ryōri-bon san-mai [三客へ出す料理盆三枚] means for the three guests, three meal-trays were brought out.

    Kasane no ue ni, han-dai sabaki no yō ni, wan wo san-gu [重ねの上に、飯台捌きのように、椀を三具] means on top of the stack (of trays), in the same way that a han-dai is handled†, were three sets of bowls.

    In this version, there is no description of the bowls‡.  Likewise, this text does not explicitly specify what was stacked, nor does the editor give any indication of how this relates to the han-dai, or how it was traditionally used.

    If the reader already understood these things, then the abbreviation of the text would not be a hindrance; but if he did not, he would have to run to a teacher for an explanation of the matter**. __________ *They were mentioned in both of the earlier versions, to give a feeling of authenticity to the narrative -- to make it seem that this is a description of an actual gathering, rather than a hypothetical situation created to allow the author to introduce his point.

†After quoting the genpon text in full, Tanaka Senshō explains its meaning in the following way:

Migi de miru to, o-zen ha san-mai kasanete, sono-ue ni ka no han-dai-ryōri no toki no gotoku, yottsu-wan ni kumite nose, hashi ha go-nin-bun kami ni tsutsumi, yōji mo dōyō go-nin-bun tsutsumite zen ni nosete dashita. Kono hataraki ni yotte, furui bon mo fukkatsu-shite shi-yō dekiru shidai de aru.

[右で見ると、お膳は三枚重ねて、其上に彼の飯台料理の時の如く、四ツ碗に組みて載せ、箸は五人分紙に包み、楊枝も同様五人分包みて膳に載せて出した。此働きに依て、古い盆も復活して使用出来る次第である。]

     His words mean:  “looking at what is written at the right [in other words, in the quoted passage from the genpon text], three o-zen [meal tables more or less of the sort shown under footnote 11, above] are stacked on top of each other, and on top of them, as in the case of the han-dai food service, four bowls are placed, together with chopsticks that are wrapped in paper for five people.  And also yōji are wrapped in paper, in the same way, for five people, and these are also placed on the zen.  If one makes use of this way of doing things, old trays can be revived and brought into use again.”

    This explanation is very confusing, because, even in the heavily edited version of the text that is found in Tanaka’s “genpon” edition of the Nampō Roku (and on which he is commenting in the passage that I quoted above), it still says san-kyaku [h]e ryōri-bon san-mai, kasane no ue ni...wan wo san-gu [三客ヘ出ス料理盆三枚、カサネノ上ニ...椀ヲ三具], which means “for taking out to the three guests, three food trays were stacked up, upon which were three sets of bowls.”  Where Tanaka got five guests from is something that I cannot explain.

    The allusion to four bowls, however, comes from a machi-shū text, written in the Edo period, that describes Rikyū‘s way of arranging the bowls on an oshiki (which Tanaka seems to believe is a zen [膳]; which, in turn, he has conflated with the han-dai) at a gathering that was held on the nineteenth day of the First Month of Tenshō 11 [天正十一年正月十九日] (1583).  In that entry, Rikyū is described as having used shu-oshiki [朱折敷] and bowls (in other words, the oshiki and bowls were painted with shu-colored lacquer), and white (bamboo) chopsticks.  The bowls were arranged on the oshiki as shown below (it says the bowl in the upper left hand corner was made of pottery; the writing describes the contents of each of the bowls).

    The menu described is much more elaborate than what we find in Rikyū’s own records -- and the arrangement of the bowls, as well as the menu, reflect the way things were being done during Jōō‘s middle period.  (This, however, appears to be the source of the idea that the lacquered bowls should be painted with shu-lacquer.)  In his catalog of Rikyū’s authenticated chakai, Tsutsui Hiroichi sensei did not include any mention of this 1583 gathering (suggesting that his researches lead him to conclude that it was spurious -- an Edo period fabrication).

    All of this aside, Tanaka’s explanation (which I quoted above in its entirety) does absolutely nothing to help us understand how the the way the han-dai is handled has any connection with Sōkei’s doings in the present episode.

‡Not even the fact that they were supposed to be newly made is mentioned -- suggesting that the use of antiques had advanced from their use as trays or oshiki, to the bowls themselves.

**And if the teacher did not know, he would make something up to save face.  The result was that the interpretation of things like the Nampō Roku departed further and further from their original, intended meaning.

¹⁴Hashi wo saki-no-kata, kami ni te hitotsu ni tsutsumite, yōji mo hitotsu ni shite dashitare ba, ichi-dan mottomo no tsukamatsu-yō nari　[箸ヲサキノ方、紙ニテ一ツニツヽミテ、ヤウジモ一ツニシテ出シタレバ、一段尤ノ仕ヤウ也].

    Hashi wo saki no kata [箸を先の方] literally means the chopsticks are on the far side (of the trays)*.

    Kami ni te hitotsu ni tsutsumite [紙にて一つに包みて] means (the chopsticks) were wrapped individually (which presumably means a pair of chopsticks was enclosed within a single wrapper).

    Yōji mo hitotsu ni shite dashitare ba, ichidan mottomo no tsukamatsu-yō nari [楊枝も一つにして出したれば、一段尤もの仕ようなり] means if the yōji are also brought out individually, this way (of doing things) will be even better.

    In other words, this phrase seems to be saying that it is better if the individual yōji are wrapped separately from the chopsticks (rather than included with them in the same wrapper), and that they should be brought out separately (from the tray of food) -- that is, at the time when the kashi are served -- rather than being brought out along with the tray, as the Enkaku-ji text has it.  

    Perhaps the reason why it would be “even better” if they were wrapped is because the meal trays would have been taken away by that time, so keeping the yōji clean, while they were being passed out, would be even more important†.

    Again, while we can visualize what all of this means, in light of the Enkaku-ji version of the text, to a person who did not have that advantage, it is difficult to imagine what they would think this sentence is saying‡. __________ *Though whether this means they are on the far side from the host, or from the guest to whom the tray will be given, is not clear.  Today, of course, the chopsticks are on the side of the tray facing the guest when it is presented to him.

    That said, in both the Enkaku-ji text, and Shibayama’s toku-shu shahon, this sentence begins hashi to yōji no saki-no-kata [箸ト楊枝ノサキノ方], which describes the end of the chopsticks and yōji that come into contact with the food.  Hashi wo saki no kata [箸ヲサキノ方], which is what we find here, means that the chopsticks were on the far side (of the tray).  Though it is actually not clear when this might have been (whether when the three trays were still stacked up, or when one of the trays was going to be handed to the guest), it is likely that the reader would understand it to mean the latter -- in light of what I wrote at the beginning of this sub-note.

†Today the kashi are usually served in fuchi-daka, and the yōji -- without wrappers -- and placed on top of the lid of the top box.  It is unclear if this is the situation that the editor was considering here, but throughout the Edo period (and even today) it was not unusual for the kashi to be served in a large bowl.  The bowl would have been carried into the room on a nagabon, along with the wrapped yōji (which would be resting on the tray).  First the yōji were passed out (each guest took one, which was then rested on his pack of kaishi), and after that the shōkyaku would be invited to help himself to the kashi.

    In the present day, the guests are generally expected to prepare their own yōji (except when attending a formal chaji) -- though this seems to have become the rule only in the early 20th century.

‡It appears that making a lucid argument was not one of the editor’s priorities.  Rather, the intention was to produce a text that was as visually different from the original as possible, so as to entice even those people who already owned an earlier version of the Nampō Roku to part with an additional handful of coins to buy this edition -- in order to acquire the newly discovered secrets that it purported to reveal.

    The “genpon” edition was a money-making venture, and nothing more than that.

¹⁵Furuki-bon ni ha, itsumo, mei-mei zen ni te mo, hashi ha tsutsumite shikaru-beku nari　[古キ盆ニハ、イツモ、メイ〰膳ニテモ、箸ハ包ミテ可然ナリ].

    Furui-bon ni ha [古い盆には] means “in the case of old trays....”

    Itsumo [何時も] means always, every time, as a rule, customarily.

    Mei-mei zen ni te mo [銘々膳にても] means “and it is also so in the case of (antique) zen....”

    Zen [膳] are individual meal-tables, such as were used in the homes of the nobility.  The common people, like monks in the temples, seem to have shared a common table (when a table was available at all).

    Hashi ha tsutsumite shikaru-beku nari [箸は包みて然るべくなり] means “it is appropriate for the chopsticks to be wrapped (in paper).”

    The meaning is that whenever the meal is served on an antique tray or table, the chopsticks should always be wrapped in paper -- so they do not come into contact with the old (and potentially soiled) surface of the object.

[y-u-u-u-u-u]

Week 13 - Assignment 3 postmortem

After completing this assignment, I must say that even developing a simple game project with a code-block-based engine isn’t easy or convenient. There were many aspects I think we did well and, of course, many that need improving.

Starting off, one of the good aspects was how passionate we were about creating Red Alert: Search and Destroy. Every team member worked on the game extensively, and I’m especially impressed by the sprites and animations our artists created. They looked super distinct and fluid and received quite a lot of praise from the playtesters. Another area we did well was communication. We were constantly discussing new ideas, assisting each other if any member ran into any problems, and sharing development progress on the part each of us was in charge of respectively. We also reasonably adjusted our ambition for the game according to our personal abilities, knowledge of GDevelop, and the amount of time left. For example, the team switched from creating multiple levels and bosses to a single one so that we could spend more effort in a more focused manner to make a better-polished game.

However, a major area we overlooked was planning and setting up milestones. I guess we all thought this game project would be relatively easy to develop, and as I said in the beginning, we were certainly wrong. Looking back to the past few weeks, our development process lacked structure, and that caused some delays. Some tasks just got dragged on for way too long, and some were not done until it was quite late. Such as platform tiles, background, and playtesting. These issues made the last few days close to the submission date quite hectic and stressful. This assignment really made me understand the importance of project planning and time management. If we had managed our development process better, we would’ve presented our game in a much more complete and polished state.

Next up, some self-reflecting... As I said in the previous post, I’m pretty inexperienced regarding 2D platformer level design, which made some sections of our level frustrating and unclear to the players. What I should’ve done was to play some relevant (similar to our design) 2D platformers myself, perhaps watch related GDC talks so that I could have a better grasp on what makes a platformer fun and how to combine all the available gameplay elements to create more meaningful challenges for the players to tackle. Rather than just analyzing level maps, reading through level design tutorials, and figuring out the rest on my own. I certainly will start doing this with every future project I’m a part of, even if the game I’ll be developing is from a familiar genre.

n10561935@qut.edu.au | Shenghua Gao 

[shadowtherapist]

1st post continued part 2

When people do not respond the way we have been conditioned to expect a response, we often become hyper focused on getting that person back on track. On a track which has been paved for us to follow. This rigidity often makes it difficult for one to be for one is only allowed to be as long as one lives and performs according to the expectations of social constructionism. One can learn to do this and in the midst of it all find peace within the chaos. However, when the chaos around us becomes too strong our inner peace is put at stake and thus it is not uncommon for people whose inner peace has been broken to break the peace of others. Perhaps it is because I understand this that I am afraid of my inner peace breaking because then I unintentionally start hurting others. I recall my youth and wishing what happened to me would happen to others so they could just understand. Until I was able to comprehend this too was wishing can causing pain onto others. Once I understood that I was functioning from a place of hurt and of distantiation from myself I was a le to understand  that when I can no longer hold space for others it is because I have allowed for the chaos around me to deplete my energy and thus my ability to be present with others. I recognize that my being needs me to reconnect and recharge. But for how long? Financially how can I even afford to care for myself enough to feel better and to do so in such a way in which it is more than a bandage for sooner rather than later I will find myself in the same place of the progress is not sustainable. How can I expect to make sustainable profress if I don't allow myself to be? Finding the balance between living within the parameters of that which can be termed western social convicencia. Which to describe this concisely so to speak refers to a society who is healing itself through others but under its own  understanding of what that should look like. Often thus causing more pain and reinforcing the conditions that keep one emotionally repressed, broken and distant. As people learn to accept constant anxiety and depression as a way of life, normalizing outbursts and breakdowns. And there is a normalcy to this to the degree that is a natural response to trauma. Yet we often wonder how we can change this as we remain reluctant to engage in preventative work. Prevention often has to do with recognition, engagement and self accountability, which when one is open to engaging in discussions with others can find like minded people (and together create ripple effects). People who accept others as they are and value choice. People who can recognize that one of the reasons we are responsible for one another is because we make decisions for each other, rather than collaborative decisions in which individual decisions are also respected and in which judgement is suspended for one is able to recognize that there is no right or wrong. Yet having conversations in which information such as experiences and consequences are shared not as limitations but as points of awareness which help one another make better informed decisions. While remembering that everything that is said and thought of is only a true to the extent that the same conditions would apply. Recognizing that conditions will never absolutely be the same means that while there are outcomes that are more likely to happen, different outcomes are always possible. Hence there is no right approach or best approach. Just because something feels right doesn't mean that one will be content with the outcome. Just like just because something feels awkward or wrong doesn't mean it is. It can simply mean that is what we have come to know thus far. And because there is no better way my preferred method is collaborative. 

[storyofasub]

I was disappointed to hear that her-master does not respect safewords. it completely changed my opinion of him as a long time follower. Very sad to learn this. I hope you are ok.

Am I ok.

I know that wasn't actually meant in the way I took it, but honestly, I dunno if I am ok.

This post is going to be huge, sorry. Idc tbh, this topic needs to be (that's part of the problem).

I've avoided this entire discussion because, after I saw how people handled the last one (derision, name-calling, white privilege, either a lack of desire and/or time and/or ability of comprehension), I had predicted another blowup involving the same circles. I had gently suggested to HM that perhaps this topic is not one to open in this environment (please forgive me, HM).

One reason is this. Over the last few years, social media, in general, has descended into an extremely low-res hunting ground where almost all topics are black and white. Tumblr seems to be an even more exaggerated example of that for some reason, I speculate this has something to do with the explicit content ban that drove away a lot of moderate people, but who knows. As such, I knew this topic would not be met with the time and emotional bandwidth required to sit back and consider alternative nuances on an *extremely* delicate subject.

Here's another reason, and the main reason that maybe I'm not ok.

(As an aside, I'm a painfully private person and I find it quite difficult to open up and be vulnerable with people generally, let alone strangers on the internet, I don't share a huge amount of my personal life online, so bear with me as I struggle through this.)

I have never, in my life, had a deeper, more complete, more fulfilling, healthier, truly beautiful experience of Dominance and submission, and of personal growth, than I have with her-master. I have had many conversations where he has agonised and wrestled with whether what he might do was safe and beneficial for his girl, even when she had begged for it. And the pain I'm experiencing now is because I'm being reminded of something I have understood for a long time, and been afraid of. That his level of empathy, his level of knowledge, his understanding of psychology, and his dedication to the personal health and his love for his owned submissive.... might be something I never find to that degree in anyone else. And thinking about that fills me with so much fear and dread that I almost never vocalise it, even to him.

This is highly relevant to this conversation. Why? Because I think a 'no safeword' dynamic can ONLY EVER, ever, ever, be even remotely possible in... probably much less than one in a million relationships. Can you even imagine the amount of personal responsibility that heaps on someone? I think to basically any good Dominant person, the mere thought of that should absolutely terrify you. If it ever comes up in a casual or flippant way, it's almost definitely a horrible red flag, one that should make you question the health of your relationship.

I believe that 99.5% of the time, safewords are absolutely necessary. I believe that if ANYONE who claims to be Dominant is the one to propose not having a safeword to you, they are very very likely to either be dangerous or stupid, or worse - both.

But here's how I know that the 0.5% exist... because I'm one of the people who knows, deep in my heart, that THAT is the place where I belong. But in my life, I've probably only known 1 or 2 other women living in that space. Women who dedicated their lives to their partner in a way most of us can barely understand. And so, personally, I just don't think this conversation is relevant or healthy for most people. But... it gets a little lonely, so I understand the desire to express what's in your heart, throw out a net and see if anyone else out there understands you.

Final thought. If by some miracles and prayers, as a Dominant who might secretly desire this, you do find yourself in that unicorn of a relationship, humble yourself and before saying yes spend some time figuring out if you have reached a place in your life where you are able to accept this responsibility. And always remember this quote that should haunt you:

To that which you tame, you owe your life.

[bratz-kitten]

questions i have for the signs

libra suns – do you learn a lot from observing other people’s behaviours? because libras do so well in group settings, and they value their emotional intelligence and ability for being likeable a lot. once, a libra sun man came up to me and just told me that he learned a lot of his behaviours from observing others and that’s how he learned better coping mechanisms/better ways of expressing himself and his emotions. at first, i found that absolutely preposterous because as someone who’s always focused so much on my own individuality and authenticity, the thought of taking aspects from other people just repulsed me, but the more i think about it, the more it makes sense – after all, there’s so much to learn from others and since observational skills are so important, why not use them to better ourselves?

also, to my libra suns once again – how the hell have you managed to build a reputation for being stable and peaceful? i swear every libra i’ve ever met was absolutely unstable – the type to throw their phones on the wall during arguments, to randomly go up to me and start psychoanalysing me, to immediately go confrontational mode no matter if they were in the middle of class, simply because they couldn’t leave shit unresolved. i’ve noticed your tendency for playing devil’s advocate in every situation in the name of “fairness” has you being VERY confrontational. it’s kinda refreshing not gonna lie.

now, ladies.. have we noticed how misogynistic cancer sun men can be or am i losing my mind? i swear to god i’ve never met ONE in my life who didn’t have extremely sexist opinions. even the ones who seem like great people and who get along with everybody – they still think that girls who sleep around casually have no self-respect and that sex workers are disgusting. also, hating on girls for doing the buss it challenge and for posting pictures where they’re showing skin and feeling themselves? saying they’re sluts? as if they’re not the same men who click on those videos? not only the misogynist part, but also extreme anger issues that come out at the most unexpected times. i believe it’s their traditionalist views and their hatred for their own femininity that has them projecting their insecurities onto other women. either way, cancer men terrify me. perhaps it’s that my father’s a cancer and he’s the blueprint of all terrible men in my life, or perhaps cancer men really are batshit crazy. either way, please change my mind lol there are probably some good ones out there but my experience has me believing otherwise

pisces mars – (18+) do you get pleasure from simply pleasuring your partner? i do this and i feel like it’s to a point where it’s toxic, every time i’m the one receiving i’ll be thinking about how i could be using this time to pleasure them instead, even if it feels really good. i don’t know what it is but the act of knowing i’m making someone feel good feels 1000 times better than everything else, it feels my soul and i think it’s a pisces mars thing. it’s crazy because it’s only in sexual matters, in day-to-day basis i’m very assertive but in bed i’m extremely submissive and just want to fulfil all of my partner’s needs. do you also have very intricate sexual fantasies that you’re constantly thinking about? also, are you masoquistic? i’ve seen other pisces mars talking about this, about how they get off on pain a lot and it makes me feel less alone. it might also relate to lilith in the 12th house because it indicates mixing pain with pleasure + escapism through fantasies + some very extreme fetishes like r*pe-play. let’s start this discussion lol

leo placements – how does it feel like being the baddest bitches alive? serious answers only. also stop making me fall in love with you it’s annoying

capricorn/scorpio suns, do you gravitate a lot towards one another? im a capricorn and i attract a lot of scorpio placements, and scorpios are the people who bring me the most intense personal transformations. it’s also definitely because i have scorpio in the 8th, but either way, i feel like these two signs attract each other like crazy because they’re the darkest signs. scorpio simbolizes death while capricorn simbolizes the devil, they’re both so difficult, complex and drawn to dark topics that i feel like it’s a match made in heaven – or hell. i’ve also observed that the most powerful power-couples in media are always relationships between capricorns and scorpios, too.

moon in the 10th house natives – do people baby you a lot? i feel like i’ll just be walking down the streets and my friends will be screaming at me to be careful like i’m a 5 year old, or offering to do things for me, or feeling an inherent need to supervise me as if i’ll get in deep shit if i’m left alone for more than 5 minutes LOL but i do think it’s something about this placement. moon in the 10th indicates being very emotional and getting easily overwhelmed, also a lot of charisma and being very sensitive when it comes to personal relationships. also the way we radiate authority makes others unconsciously be more obedient towards our needs, and we have a very strong need to protect others and create a family within our friend groups, which might be creating these dynamics.

leo suns/moons/risings – do you feel like having a low self-esteem quite literally contributes to the deterioration of your physical health? i think there’s such a stark difference between when you’re feeling insecure and in an unhealthy relationship vs when you leave the toxicity behind and work on your self-confidence, there’s an immediate glow up, like you’re literally glowing and it shows.

gemini suns – why do so many people hate you? even people who know nothing about astrology will say they hate geminis. genuine question because geminis are one of my favorite signs. i think it’s something about the way you easily adapt to other people’s personalities and mirror their energy, so you’ve built this reputation for being two-faced when you’re literally just.. socially intelligent.

air moons – how tf can you turn your emotions off? what do you mean using logic instead of feelings i will literally unalive myself

capricorn moons – how does it feel like having healthy coping mechanisms? oh wait, it’s not like you’d know LMFAOOOO

scorpio mars – are you as sexual as people portray you to be or do you feel a bit weird about the way people talk about you? because people always talk about scorpio mars as this sex machines, but like.. scorpio’s a water sign. very sensitive. i’ve noticed you guys literally avoid having sex with people because it’s like giving them a part of your soul, and you know you’ll get extremely attached to them afterwards. is sex a casual thing for you or can you only feel satisfied when there’s an emotional connection established? this goes for all water sign mars by the way.

scorpio risings – do you only listen to music that you feel has a deep meaning? my brother is a scorpio rising and he prides himself a lot on his music taste and how deep the music he listens to is. and as an aries rising im just like.. sir i listen to doja cat because hearing her sing about sex and fat tiddies makes me happy

[mimzy-writing-online]

Hello. I had a question regarding your post about blind characters. I have a character in my WIP that must cover their eyes.. but it’s blind. He may need to tell people he is blind to explain why he covers his eyes though. I was wondering how I might write this character without offending. Thank you :)

I think I want to start by explaining the “covering blind eyes” trope and why it has become a harmful trope. I think understanding why it’s hurtful helps everyone learn how to handle it better.

I would guess that the “blind people wear sunglasses” trope comes from Hollywood for the specific reason of 1. wanting to signal to the audience that the character is obviously blind and 2. avoid breaking the suspension of disbelief by preventing the audience from catching the sighted actor look at visual stimuli (because disabled characters are almost always played by able actors).

But this changed the way the public expects to experience blindness. If watching a sighted actor wear sunglasses and say he’s blind is all the exposure to the blind community a person has had, that’s the only model of blindness they’ll recognize. If they meet a blind person in real life who doesn’t wear sunglasses, it’s going to break this built perception and cause an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. 

And then there is the common “cloudy-white blank gaze” that pops up in media. It stems from the fact that cataracts is the most common cause of blindness and the appearance of severe cataracts is a cloudy film in the eyes obscuring the iris and pupil. It can also alter what color a person’s eyes appears to be, making them appear paler and grey in the beginning and then as the cataract advances it becomes more yellow/brown and alters a person’s vision to appear more yellow tinted.

There are lots of other eye conditions that makes the eyes look visibly different. Albinism for instance affects the color and structure of the iris. Eyes might be congenitally misshapen. The muscles might be weak or not work and one or both eyes point significantly outward. Someone who was born blind and experienced no visual stimuli might also have weak muscles around their eyes because they never had a reason to focus their eyes on anything.

And unfortunately humans have the habit of feeling uncomfortable when they meet someone who looks very obviously different from the norm, whether that’s a personal style choice (hair color and style, tattoos, clothing choices) or something they can’t help (a visible disability, skin color, scars). 

To the paragraph above, @gothhabiba replied with:  “it's very weird & ahistorical to claim that racism or ableism are some kind of natural "human" trait.. like frankly it's apologia”

You’re right, I wasn’t thinking beyond that generalization or assumption.

Perhaps a better way to put it is: I was raised in a society where I was taught from childhood to think that there was only one kind of human being to be. White, cis, straight, abled, conservative. That’s a very western thing and that’s a thing I’m going to constantly be unlearning.

Racism and ableism and homophobia aren’t innate, that’s a western thing that was forced onto the rest of the world by colonialism. And because western media created this idea that the world is white, abled, cis, straight, and Christian-value leaning, it taught people to think that was the norm so that seeing someone different from that archetype would cause a cognitive dissonance, which causes discomfort.

And instead of working past that cognitive dissonance to learn more and realize there’s so much more to life than media taught you, society encourages you to ignore that cognitive dissonance by sticking your head in the sand-- or TV screen.

So combine these two tropes or common beliefs together and you get something a little dangerous: the idea that blind people cover their eyes because they look obviously different and they’re ashamed (or should be ashamed) of that.

And if you’re someone who’s just gone blind or who was born blind and you have little to no contact with the blind community, then this societal belief that you should be ashamed of how your eyes look becomes detrimental to your self-esteem and further builds internalized ableism.

I’ve lost count of the times I’ve read or watched a blind character cover their eyes with sunglasses because they were ashamed of how their eyes looked. And I distinctly remember a few times where a sighted friend of the character was trying to convince them to stop wearing sunglasses because there’s nothing wrong with looking different--which is true, but it plays into this fantasy of being the perfect abled ally who saves the blind character from being miserable. 

In an ideal world, the character has no reason to believe looking different is a bad thing or diminishes their worth or makes people dislike them. And if they develop this belief, it’s more likely that someone more involved in the disabled community, most likely someone disabled themselves, will set them straight. Or that the character will learn to accept themselves on their own, looks included.

But there are some perfectly valid reasons for any blind person to wear sunglasses. They might have an interest in fashion and sunglasses complete the look they’re going for. They could want to protect their eyes from UV rays while they’re outside. They may experience light sensitivity and sunglasses reduces any discomfort or pain. Those are incredibly common reasons to wear sunglasses whether you’re sighted or blind.

But there are some more complicated situations.

In your words, your character must cover his eyes. You never specified why, so my primary guess is that he has some kind of power that is unpleasant or has devastating affects and the only way to prevent it is to keep his eyes covered. My primary guess stems from this post where an anon and I discussed a retelling of Medusa, a hypothetical blinding of oneself to avoid ever killing anyone ever again, and what I think I would do if I was in that scenario.

So how do you write a blind character who must cover their eyes and avoid some of the complications?

1. Your character must always have the ability to say “fuck off, it’s my business, I don’t have to tell you why I’m blind or why I cover my eyes.”

Most blind people really, really don’t want to get into the nitty-gritty of why they’re blind and how they feel about it and what it’s like being blind with a stranger they’ll never see again or a new acquaintance they don’t know well yet. You have exceptions to that rule where sure, educating the public about blindness is a thing you want to do and you’re committed to helping your community, but I still have days where I don’t want to talk about being blind or disclose my medical crap.

And if someone doesn’t respect their right to their privacy or pushes too much, the blind character is allowed to be angry, is allowed to tell them off and complain without anyone else in the situation vilifying them or saying they’re “overreacting” and “should have just disclosed private information because big deal or whatever.” If they are angry, that’s their right, and it’s not unreasonable, it doesn’t make them a bad person.

2. Your character should not be ashamed of being blind or of covering their eyes. It is a part of their life, they’re used to it by now, even if they weren’t in the beginning.

The shame and internalized ableism is something that should be written about, but that’s for an own-voices story with a blind author. I don’t think an abled person will ever be able to understand how much society expects you to hate yourself and your disability because “being disabled is a tragic thing that ruins your life” and how that does affect your mental health, self esteem, your relationships with others, your medical care, and what kind of accommodations you can get.

3. It wouldn’t hurt to have a few sarcastic lines in response to uncomfortable conversations.

Stranger: so what’s with the...

Blind Character: what’s with what?

S: the... you know

BC: you’re gonna have to be a bit more specific

S: Your eyes?

BC: They’re... eyes

S: but you’re...

BC: Blind?

S: uh...

BC: yeah, I’m blind. *walks away*

Or this conversation:

S: *to some other character* so why are his eyes covered?

(author’s note: which, honestly, that’s fucking rude. At least have the guts to ask me yourself)

BC: If I look anyone in the eye they instantly perish.

*awkward silence*

BC: instantly.

Friend: It’s truly tragic

BC: *melancholic* that’s how I lost my sister. *chokes up* She was so young

Or this conversation:

S: Why are you wearing that?

BC: It’s called fashion Karen!

Or this conversation:

S: are you like... blind?

BC: yes?? why wouldn’t I be?? Wait, are you sighted? Are you one of those sighted people? You poor thing! What caused you to gain your sight? Do you have a car? A bike? Were you born sighted? What’s it like to see color? Do you miss not having to see 

God, I want a chance to try that last one. I haven’t interacted with a stranger in almost a year. One day...

4. Honestly, it’d also be cool if someone’s reaction to your character covering their eyes was like, “cool sunglasses,” or “cool *insert random character, even one you made up* cosplay,” (which is ten times funnier if this character is a notable figure in modern society like an actor who people might cosplay). 

5. You know, if he’s covering his eyes with some kind of blindfold, he should totally have custom blindfolds for his moods. Like, I have a mask that says “suck it up buttercup” and another that says “not today” because sometimes that’s the mood. And sometimes the mood is one of my floral masks, and sometimes the mood is my cat mask.

So, just some thoughts. I hope that helps.

Edit: a commenter said: “op, unless i'm mistaken this kind of reads like anon meant the character ISN'T blind but lies about being blind to explain covering their eyes? it seems like they made a typo on the word "isn't"”

So my original response to the question was based on the assumption that the character is blind. However,

If the character is not blind, then do not under any circumstances have them lie and say they’re blind to escape a mild inconvenience. 

It’s better to have the character actually explain the situation or straight up leave the conversation or invent a more ridiculous lie than to perpetuate the very real stereotype and misconception that there are people who fake being blind and therefore it’s okay to discriminate or harass them if you even suspect they’re faking.

Do not under any circumstances perpetuate that stereotype. Do not harass someone because you don’t think they’re blind enough.

[samwisethewitch]

Using Human Body Parts in Spells

Many witches believe that the human body is sacred. Whether they’re pantheists, animists, or somewhere in between, most magical practitioners agree that there is some sort of divine or magical essence contained in all living things, including our bodies. But if that’s the case, why do so many witches hesitate to use parts of the body in their craft?

Part of it is the “ick” factor. Western society is shaped by religious and cultural influences that tell us our bodies are unclean, gross, or even scary. In order to comfortably work with the energies of the human body in magic, we have to unlearn these cultural influences.

This post covers the uses of human effects (materials that come from the human body) in witchcraft and magic.

Why Use This Stuff, Anyway?

By far the most common use of human effects in magic is as a taglock. A taglock is an item from the person a spell is meant to affect — either a small piece of their person (such as hair or fingernail clippings), or a personal belonging that is energetically connected to them. A taglock acts as a sort of anchor, tying the energy of a spell to that specific person and providing a direct link between them and the magic. Think of it as an energetic targeting system. This brings faster, more powerful results.

The use of taglocks is connected to the concept of sympathetic magic, which states that what is done to a small part of a person or thing (including an image or effigy) affects the whole. This idea is as old as humans — in fact, some archaeologists believe that Paleolithic cave paintings of injured animals were a form of sympathetic magic meant to manifest successful hunts.

If you need a taglock for a spell and can’t or don’t want to use hair/fingernails/etc., use one of the person’s belongings instead. This can be a business card, a child’s stuffed animal, or a napkin they used at dinner — whatever you can get your hands on. If you can’t get a personal belonging, use a photograph of the person.

Aside from linking magic to a specific person, different human effects have their own magical correspondences (see below). Depending on your spell, it may make sense to include hair as a symbol of personal power and self-expression or menstrual blood as a symbol of releasing old energy. Most witches don’t think twice about using milk or eggs, which come from the bodies of cows and chickens, in their magic, so why shouldn’t we use things from our own bodies as well?

There is an unfortunate stigma around the use of human effects in magic. Things like blood and hair are unfairly associated with dark magic, and many witches avoid them for that reason. Like any other magical tool, human effects can be used in spells for good or ill. You could use a taglock to add power to a healing spell, for example, or put your own hair in a success spell to anchor that success to you. These items are a part of you — they are no more evil or scary than you are.

Ethics and Safety

We’ve already discussed the ethical implications of doing magic on other people. This is especially important to keep in mind when working with human effects, either your own or someone else’s, because you are working directly with that person’s energy. Sympathetic magic gets very up close and personal, so it’s important to take care.

Don’t do anything to the personal effect, whatever it is, that you wouldn’t do to the person themselves. (Yes, this still applies if you’re using one of their possessions, or even a photograph.) Be gentle and respectful. Don’t throw it around or be careless with it. Don’t set it on fire or cut it up unless you really know what you’re doing and really want to fuck with the person it came from.

There are certain safety precautions that need to be taken when working with human effects, especially bodily fluids. I’ll talk about safety protocol for blood magic in a future post, but for now just be aware of the danger of bloodborne diseases and other possible contaminants. Sexual fluids may carry STIs, for example. For this reason, you should always take care when handling someone else’s bodily fluids. Wear gloves and make sure you don’t have any exposed cuts or sores.

Hair and fingernails are the safest human effects because they contain dead cells, and thus the risk of contagion is low. They’re also usually a little easier to get a hold of, especially if you’re doing magic for another person. Hair and nail clippings are most witches’ go-to taglocks for these reasons.

And finally, do not ever, under any circumstances, eat, drink, or bathe in anything that came from another person’s body. Some older spells call for adding blood or some other bodily fluid to food, and some old initiation rituals require the initiate to drink wine containing a drop of blood from each group member. In modern times, we know that this is dangerous because it could potentially spread disease. Trust me when I say there is no good reason to ever consume someone else’s DNA. Just don’t.

Correspondences

Below are correspondences for some human effects that can fairly easily be incorporated into spells. I have also included substitutions, for those who truly just aren’t comfortable working with human effects. These substitutions may not be quite as powerful, but the symbolism is similar.

Note: The use of blood in magic is a huge topic with a rich history, so I have chosen to devote an entire post to it. Blood is not mentioned in this post, but I will be posting about it soon!

Correspondences of Human Effects

Hair is closely tied to a person’s essence and personal power, perhaps more so than any other effect besides blood. In many cultures, hair is never cut to avoid dispersing this power. (Think of the story of Samson in the Bible.) Hair is also associated with the head, mental abilities, and thoughts. Hair is one of the most powerful taglocks, and can also be used in spells related to strength, beauty, and mental clarity. Use a few of your own hairs to tie something up to bind it with your personal power.

Substitutes for Hair: clove (for empowerment), rosemary (for mental clarity), catnip (for beauty)

Saliva lends itself to many purposes because of its wide array of correspondences. On one hand it is associated with kissing and sex (think of the phrase “swapping spit” to describe kissing), but on the other it can be extremely offensive (spitting on someone is a very old and very strong insult). Saliva can also be substituted for any other bodily fluid.

Substitutes for Saliva: cardamom (for love and lust), vinegar (for cursing and insult)

Fingernails are, of course, linked to the hands and to a person’s ability to act. They’re also one of the easiest human effects to collect, which make them a good choice for a taglock. I usually see fingernails used in this context rather than to bring a certain energy to a spell.

Substitute for Fingernails: clove (to empower action)

Semen and Vaginal Arousal Fluid are, naturally, associated with sex. Both are associated with pure potential, fertility, and action, and can give your spell a heck of a power boost. Use sexual fluids in spells for growth and new beginnings. They are also useful in love magic — anoint a red candle with your sexual fluids to attract a lover.

Substitutes for Semen and Vaginal Arousal Fluid: penis or vulva shaped candle (for sex magic), rice (for fertility), rose (for love), cinnamon (for lust)

Urine is a traditional ingredient in the witch bottle, a powerful protective charm. It’s also found in both curses and love spells in American folk magic. Interestingly, it’s also used to break curses. One of my teachers practiced Appalachian folk magic, and she used to say that the most surefire way to get rid of any curse was to “piss on a brick.” (Red bricks are also associated with protection.) As you can see, urine is perhaps the most versatile bodily fluid when it comes to magical uses.

Substitutes for Urine: vinegar (for protection, cursing, and curse breaking), cardamom (for love and lust)

Human effects are a powerful way to add strength to any spell. Next time you’re conjuring healing, manifestation, or love, consider throwing some hair or fingernails in there. Let your body’s magic be a part of your craft.

Resources:

Utterly Wicked by Dorothy Morrison

Of Blood and Bones by Kate Freuler

“The Meaning of European Upper Paleolithic Rock Art” by Cristian Violatti on ancient.eu

A Green Witch’s Cupboard by Deborah J. Martin

[midnight-sun-01]

The Price of Truth

Rating: 18+ minors, this ain’t it for you, get out of here

Pairing: OC x Crosshair

Warnings: these apply to the entire work and will not all appear in each chapter: alcohol use, unprotected sex, violence, canon-typical gore, swearing, let me know if I missed anything

Wordcount: 1210

Summary: This is my first fanfic! WIP. I hope I’m doing this right. OC is a journalist, gets assigned to field work, and stumbles across a massive conspiracy regarding the clones. Slow burn, slow build, this chapter is a lot of set up. AU where some timelines are probably non-canon, and things go differently with the inhibitor chips.

Sorry if the formatting is weird, my computer is old and I had to be creative with posting this.

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11

That evening Poppy dragged her box of retired field equipment out of the back of her closet and sat down in her living room to begin sorting through it. It was difficult to decide what would be of actual use to her on this assignment. Nothing too big or heavy, in case she had to run, and nothing too flimsy or that water could damage. As she weighed the pros and cons of bringing a second holo charger, a knock at the door interrupted her thoughts. She dragged herself off her couch with a sigh and looked through the peephole, seeing a familiar head of copper hair.

           “Coltway,” she said, simply, as she opened the door and leaned against the frame.

           “Poppy. Can I come in?” he asked. “I’ve brought a peace offering,” he said holding up a 6 pack of beer.

           “Sure,” smirked Poppy, unable to mask her pleasure at seeing her old friend. “How did you know I’d let you in?” she inquired.

           “I didn’t. But I figured I should at least try, considering you’re about to be gone for quite some time. I also knew you would need help sorting through this mess,” Coltway said, gesturing at the detritus of the box strewn across the floor and table as she had attempted to organize it all. Poppy rolled her eyes, but still smiled slightly.

           “Sometimes you know me better than I know myself, Coltway. Well, if you’re here, make yourself useful,” she said simply.

           The two old friends got to work, sorting through her box of field supplies, deciding what would be useful in this context and what would be a hindrance, all while slowly sipping their way through the 6 pack. Their years of working together had given them an easy familiarity with one another, an ability to work together on a project while ignoring the elephant in the room that was begging to be discussed. It was one of the great things about Coltway that Poppy reflected perhaps she had not appreciated fully until this moment. After deciding that an antiquated, manual journal with pens would, in fact, be of some use in a chaotic environment such as a war zone, Poppy finally decided to broach the subject.

           “So, Ric is dead,” she said, while firmly avoiding Coltway’s gaze. He simply nodded. “How did it happen?” she asked quietly.

           Coltway leaned back against the leg of the couch where he was sitting on the floor, took a deep breath, and a big swig of his drink. He seemed to be weighing words in his mind as carefully as a merchant would weigh gold.  Coltway stood up, turned on the holo to the nightly newscast on the Coruscant News Network, and turned the volume up. He finally spoke in a measured tone.

           “What do you know about the battalion Ric was embedded with?”

           “Not much. I know that Ric seemed to like those clones. I know he had a great deal of respect for them, and as much as he tried not to let his personal beliefs influence my reporting or his when it came to corresponding about our project, I could tell that he believed more and more strongly in clone autonomy by the day. He spoke about each of the clones he knew in the most endearing way, and never failed to mention their bravery,” she paused, wondering if she should go on. However, Coltway nodded simply.

           “All of that is true, but there is more to it. Ric sent me a private wave four days ago, and he was not at all himself.  He sounded jumpy, nervous, maybe scared. Not the Ric who asked to go into the field, the Ric who was always chasing the danger of that next assignment. You knew him, he lived in the field,” Coltway paused, and Poppy sat very still, not wanting to disturb the fragile understanding that was cradling their conversation, as if even shifting her weight would change Coltway’s mind and he would drop the subject.

           “For some reason, Ric was under the impression that there was a massive conspiracy responsible for the clone wars starting,” Coltway continued. “He had just gotten off an assignment on Oba Diah with a small detachment of clones. They were working on busting up the Pyke’s spice operation, as it had interfered with an aid mission they were on. As I understand it, quite a few lives were lost on this mission.”

           “Ric had mentioned he was going on an easy, peacekeeping mission, but he didn’t say anything about the Pykes,” Poppy breathed.

           “Yes, well, that part of the mission seemed to be borne out of necessity, it wasn’t the original objective.” Coltway paused, and clicked the volume on the newscast up a few more notches. “I don’t know what happened there, but Ric saw something that deeply disturbed him. He refused to share any details with me until after he had completed his report. The clone regiment Ric was stationed with came across something unusual on Oba Diah. Two days ago, that regiment was ambushed, and Ric was killed. The official story is that it was random, and unrelated to any missions. Last night Harum Nagata called me and told me he wants you to finish up you and Ric’s project, and that you are reassigned to the field, effective immediately,” Coltway finished, looking down at the floor.

           Poppy sat in a stunned silence for a few moments, trying to absorb all of the information she had just been given. Ric, out in the field, and scared? The very idea was absurd. Ric thrived on adrenaline, spending a year documenting Tusken Raiders. She didn’t know much about his last mission with the clones, but Poppy did know that he would never crack up and lose his nerve.

           “Coltway…” Poppy said slowly, “how much power do I have over my own story? The autonomy of the clones, and their status as sentient, individual beings, is in question and being debated more and more hotly every day. Some senators are absolutely convinced that this army is unjust. I see the dissent and the friction every day that I’m present in the Senate. I know the Chancellor is a strong supporter of using the clone army.”

           “Ask what you need to,” said Coltway bluntly.

           “If I disagree with the Chancellor, and my findings are different than what he and Mas Amedda expect, how serious will the consequences be for me?”

           “They will be of the utmost severity. Tread carefully. You are an old, dear friend of mine. I lost one of those two days ago. I don’t intend to lose another.”

           Coltway fixed her with an uncharacteristically serious stare, and held her eyes until Poppy nodded, solemnly, swallowed an unexpected lump in the back of her throat, and turned back to the remaining pile before her.

           “And take the digital recorder, as well as the physical film for your camera. You never know when you’ll want to do something the old-school way,” Coltway finished.

[blind-rats]

The Rise & Fall of Joss Whedon; the Myth of the Hollywood Feminist Hero

By Kelly Faircloth

“I hate ‘feminist.’ Is this a good time to bring that up?” Joss Whedon asked. He paused knowingly, waiting for the laughs he knew would come at the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer making such a statement.

It was 2013, and Whedon was onstage at a fundraiser for Equality Now, a human rights organization dedicated to legal equality for women. Though Buffy had been off the air for more than a decade, its legacy still loomed large; Whedon was widely respected as a man with a predilection for making science fiction with strong women for protagonists. Whedon went on to outline why, precisely, he hated the term: “You can’t be born an ‘ist,’” he argued, therefore, “‘feminist’ includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state, that we don’t emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that’s imposed on us.”

The speech was widely praised and helped cement his pop-cultural reputation as a feminist, in an era that was very keen on celebrity feminists. But it was also, in retrospect, perhaps the high water mark for Whedon’s ability to claim the title, and now, almost a decade later, that reputation is finally in tatters, prompting a reevaluation of not just Whedon’s work, but the narrative he sold about himself. 

In July 2020, actor Ray Fisher accused Whedon of being “gross, abusive, unprofessional, and completely unacceptable” on the Justice League set when Whedon took over for Zach Synder as director to finish the project. Charisma Carpenter then described her own experiences with Whedon in a long post to Twitter, hashtagged #IStandWithRayFisher.

On Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, Carpenter played Cordelia, a popular character who morphed from snob to hero—one of those strong female characters that made Whedon’s feminist reputation—before being unceremoniously written off the show in a plot that saw her thrust into a coma after getting pregnant with a demon. For years, fans have suspected that her disappearance was related to her real-life pregnancy. In her statement, Carpenter appeared to confirm the rumors. “Joss Whedon abused his power on numerous occasions while working on the sets of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and ‘Angel,’” she wrote, describing Fisher’s firing as the last straw that inspired her to go public.

Buffy was a landmark of late 1990s popular culture, beloved by many a burgeoning feminist, grad student, gender studies professor, and television critic for the heroine at the heart of the show, the beautiful blonde girl who balanced monster-killing with high school homework alongside ancillary characters like the shy, geeky Willow. Buffy was very nearly one of a kind, an icon of her era who spawned a generation of leather-pants-wearing urban fantasy badasses and women action heroes.

Buffy was so beloved, in fact, that she earned Whedon a similarly privileged place in fans’ hearts and a broader reputation as a man who championed empowered women characters. In the desert of late ’90s and early 2000s popular culture, Whedon was heralded as that rarest of birds—the feminist Hollywood man. For many, he was an example of what more equitable storytelling might look like, a model for how to create compelling women protagonists who were also very, very fun to watch. But Carpenter’s accusations appear to have finally imploded that particular bit of branding, revealing a different reality behind the scenes and prompting a reevaluation of the entire arc of Whedon’s career: who he was and what he was selling all along.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer premiered March 1997, midseason, on The WB, a two-year-old network targeting teens with shows like 7th Heaven. Its beginnings were not necessarily auspicious; it was a reboot of a not-particularly-blockbuster 1992 movie written by third-generation screenwriter Joss Whedon. (His grandfather wrote for The Donna Reed Show; his father wrote for Golden Girls.) The show followed the trials of a stereotypical teenage California girl who moved to a new town and a new school after her parents’ divorce—only, in a deliberate inversion of horror tropes, the entire town sat on top of the entrance to Hell and hence was overrun with demons. Buffy was a slayer, a young woman with the power and immense responsibility to fight them. After the movie turned out very differently than Whedon had originally envisioned, the show was a chance for a do-over, more of a Valley girl comedy than serious horror.

It was layered, it was campy, it was ironic and self-aware. It looked like it belonged on the WB rather than one of the bigger broadcast networks, unlike the slickly produced prestige TV that would follow a few years later. Buffy didn’t fixate on the gory glory of killing vampires—really, the monsters were metaphors for the entire experience of adolescence, in all its complicated misery. Almost immediately, a broad cross-section of viewers responded enthusiastically. Critics loved it, and it would be hugely influential on Whedon’s colleagues in television; many argue that it broke ground in terms of what you could do with a television show in terms of serialized storytelling, setting the stage for the modern TV era. Academics took it up, with the show attracting a tremendous amount of attention and discussion.

In 2002, the New York Times covered the first academic conference dedicated to the show. The organizer called Buffy “a tremendously rich text,” hence the flood of papers with titles like “Pain as Bright as Steel: The Monomyth and Light in ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer,’” which only gathered speed as the years passed. And while it was never the highest-rated show on television, it attracted an ardent core of fans.

But what stood out the most was the show’s protagonist: a young woman who stereotypically would have been a monster movie victim, with the script flipped: instead of screaming and swooning, she staked the vampires. This was deliberate, the core conceit of the concept, as Whedon said in many, many interviews. The helpless horror movie girl killed in the dark alley instead walks out victorious. He told Time in 1997 that the concept was born from the thought, “I would love to see a movie in which a blond wanders into a dark alley, takes care of herself and deploys her powers.” In Whedon’s framing, it was particularly important that it was a woman who walked out of that alley. He told another publication in 2002 that “the very first mission statement of the show” was “the joy of female power: having it, using it, sharing it.”

In 2021, when seemingly every new streaming property with a woman as its central character makes some half-baked claim to feminism, it’s easy to forget just how much Buffy stood out among its against its contemporaries. Action movies—with exceptions like Alien’s Ripley and Terminator 2's Sarah Conner—were ruled by hulking tough guys with macho swagger. When women appeared on screen opposite vampires, their primary job was to expose long, lovely, vulnerable necks. Stories and characters that bucked these larger currents inspired intense devotion, from Angela Chase of My So-Called Life to Dana Scully of The X-Files.

The broader landscape, too, was dismal. It was the conflicted era of girl power, a concept that sprang up in the wake of the successes of the second-wave feminist movement and the backlash that followed. Young women were constantly exposed to you-can-do-it messaging that juxtaposed uneasily with the reality of the world around them. This was the era of shitty, sexist jokes about every woman who came into Bill Clinton’s orbit and the leering response to the arrival of Britney Spears; Rush Limbaugh was a fairly mainstream figure.

At one point, Buffy competed against Ally McBeal, a show that dedicated an entire episode to a dancing computer-generated baby following around its lawyer main character, her biological clock made zanily literal. Consider this line from a New York Times review of the Buffy’s 1997 premiere: “Given to hot pants and boots that should guarantee the close attention of Humbert Humberts all over America, Buffy is just your average teen-ager, poutily obsessed with clothes and boys.”

Against that background, Buffy was a landmark. Besides the simple fact of its woman protagonist, there were unique plots, like the coming-out story for her friend Willow. An ambivalent 1999 piece in Bitch magazine, even as it explored the show’s tank-top heavy marketing, ultimately concluded, “In the end, it’s precisely this contextual conflict that sets Buffy apart from the rest and makes her an appealing icon. Frustrating as her contradictions may be, annoying as her babe quotient may be, Buffy still offers up a prime-time heroine like no other.”

A 2016 Atlantic piece, adapted from a book excerpt, makes the case that Buffy is perhaps best understood as an icon of third-wave feminism: “In its examination of individual and collective empowerment, its ambiguous politics of racial representation and its willing embrace of contradiction, Buffy is a quintessentially third-wave cultural production.” The show was vested with all the era’s longing for something better than what was available, something different, a champion for a conflicted “post-feminist” era—even if she was an imperfect or somewhat incongruous vessel. It wasn’t just Sunnydale that needed a chosen Slayer, it was an entire generation of women. That fact became intricately intertwined with Whedon himself.

Seemingly every interview involved a discussion of his fondness for stories about strong women. “I’ve always found strong women interesting, because they are not overly represented in the cinema,” he told New York for a 1997 piece that notes he studied both film and “gender and feminist issues” at Wesleyan; “I seem to be the guy for strong action women,’’ he told the New York Times in 1997 with an aw-shucks sort of shrug. ‘’A lot of writers are just terrible when it comes to writing female characters. They forget that they are people.’’ He often cited the influence of his strong, “hardcore feminist” mother, and even suggested that his protagonists served feminist ends in and of themselves: “If I can make teenage boys comfortable with a girl who takes charge of a situation without their knowing that’s what’s happening, it’s better than sitting down and selling them on feminism,” he told Time in 1997.

When he was honored by the organization Equality Now in 2006 for his “outstanding contribution to equality in film and television,” Whedon made his speech an extended riff on the fact that people just kept asking him about it, concluding with the ultimate answer: “Because you’re still asking me that question.” He presented strong women as a simple no-brainer, and he was seemingly always happy to say so, at a time when the entertainment business still seemed ruled by unapologetic misogynists. The internet of the mid-2010s only intensified Whedon’s anointment as a prototypical Hollywood ally, with reporters asking him things like how men could best support the feminist movement. 

Whedon’s response: “A guy who goes around saying ‘I’m a feminist’ usually has an agenda that is not feminist. A guy who behaves like one, who actually becomes involved in the movement, generally speaking, you can trust that. And it doesn’t just apply to the action that is activist. It applies to the way they treat the women they work with and they live with and they see on the street.” This remark takes on a great deal of irony in light of Carpenter’s statement.

In recent years, Whedon’s reputation as an ally began to wane. Partly, it was because of the work itself, which revealed more and more cracks as Buffy receded in the rearview mirror. Maybe it all started to sour with Dollhouse, a TV show that imagined Eliza Dushku as a young woman rented out to the rich and powerful, her mind wiped after every assignment, a concept that sat poorly with fans. (Though Whedon, while he was publicly unhappy with how the show had turned out after much push-and-pull with the corporate bosses at Fox, still argued the conceit was “the most pure feminist and empowering statement I’d ever made—somebody building themselves from nothing,” in a 2012 interview with Wired.)

After years of loud disappointment with the TV bosses at Fox on Firefly and Dollhouse, Whedon moved into big-budget Hollywood blockbusters. He helped birth the Marvel-dominated era of movies with his work as director of The Avengers. But his second Avengers movie, Age of Ultron, was heavily criticized for a moment in which Black Widow laid out her personal reproductive history for the Hulk, suggesting her sterilization somehow made her a “monster.” In June 2017, his un-filmed script for a Wonder Woman adaptation leaked, to widespread mockery. The script’s introduction of Diana was almost leering: “To say she is beautiful is almost to miss the point. She is elemental, as natural and wild as the luminous flora surrounding. Her dark hair waterfalls to her shoulders in soft arcs and curls. Her body is curvaceous, but taut as a drawn bow.”

But Whedon’s real fall from grace began in 2017, right before MeToo spurred a cultural reckoning. His ex-wife, Kai Cole, published a piece in The Wrap accusing him of cheating off and on throughout their relationship and calling him a hypocrite:

“Despite understanding, on some level, that what he was doing was wrong, he never conceded the hypocrisy of being out in the world preaching feminist ideals, while at the same time, taking away my right to make choices for my life and my body based on the truth. He deceived me for 15 years, so he could have everything he wanted. I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights, committed to our marriage, and to the women he worked with. But I now see how he used his relationship with me as a shield, both during and after our marriage, so no one would question his relationships with other women or scrutinize his writing as anything other than feminist.”

But his reputation was just too strong; the accusation that he didn’t practice what he preached didn’t quite stick. A spokesperson for Whedon told the Wrap: “While this account includes inaccuracies and misrepresentations which can be harmful to their family, Joss is not commenting, out of concern for his children and out of respect for his ex-wife. Many minimized the essay on the basis that adultery doesn’t necessarily make you a bad feminist or erase a legacy. Whedon similarly seemed to shrug off Ray Fisher’s accusations of creating a toxic workplace; instead, Warner Media fired Fisher.

But Carpenter’s statement—which struck right at the heart of his Buffy-based legacy for progressivism—may finally change things. Even at the time, the plotline in which Charisma Carpenter was written off Angel—carrying a demon child that turned her into “Evil Cordelia,” ending the season in a coma, and quite simply never reappearing—was unpopular. Asked about what had happened in a 2009 panel at DragonCon, she said that “my relationship with Joss became strained,” continuing: “We all go through our stuff in general [behind the scenes], and I was going through my stuff, and then I became pregnant. And I guess in his mind, he had a different way of seeing the season go… in the fourth season.”

“I think Joss was, honestly, mad. I think he was mad at me and I say that in a loving way, which is—it’s a very complicated dynamic working for somebody for so many years, and expectations, and also being on a show for eight years, you gotta live your life. And sometimes living your life gets in the way of maybe the creator’s vision for the future. And that becomes conflict, and that was my experience.”

In her statement on Twitter, Carpenter alleged that after Whedon was informed of her pregnancy, he called her into a closed-door meeting and “asked me if I was ‘going to keep it,’ and manipulatively weaponized my womanhood and faith against me.” She added that “he proceeded to attack my character, mock my religious beliefs, accuse me of sabotaging the show, and then unceremoniously fired me following the season once I gave birth.” Carpenter said that he called her fat while she was four months pregnant and scheduled her to work at 1 a.m. while six months pregnant after her doctor had recommended shortening her hours, a move she describes as retaliatory. What Carpenter describes, in other words, is an absolutely textbook case of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, the type of bullshit the feminist movement exists to fight—at the hands of the man who was for years lauded as a Hollywood feminist for his work on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel.

Many of Carpenter’s colleagues from Buffy and Angel spoke out in support, including Buffy herself, Sarah Michelle Gellar. “While I am proud to have my name associated with Buffy Summers, I don’t want to be forever associated with the name Joss Whedon,” she said in a statement. Just shy of a decade after that 2013 speech, many of the cast members on the show that put him on that stage are cutting ties.

Whedon garnered a reputation as pop culture’s ultimate feminist man because Buffy did stand out so much, an oasis in a wasteland. But in 2021, the idea of a lone man being responsible for creating women’s stories—one who told the New York Times, “I seem to be the guy for strong action women”—seems like a relic. It’s depressing to consider how many years Hollywood’s first instinct for “strong action women” wasn’t a woman, and to think about what other people could have done with those resources. When Wonder Woman finally reached the screen, to great acclaim, it was with a woman as director.

Besides, Whedon didn’t make Buffy all by himself—many, many women contributed, from the actresses to the writers to the stunt workers, and his reputation grew so large it eclipsed their part in the show’s creation. Even as he preached feminism, Whedon benefitted from one of the oldest, most sexist stereotypes: the man who’s a benevolent, creative genius. And Buffy, too, overshadowed all the other contributors who redefined who could be a hero on television and in speculative fiction, from individual actors like Gillian Anderson to the determined, creative women who wrote science fiction and fantasy over the last several decades to—perhaps most of all—the fans who craved different, better stories. Buffy helped change what you could put on TV, but it didn’t create the desire to see a character like her. It was that desire, as much as Whedon himself, that gave Buffy the Vampire Slayer her power.