#so he can use as many parentheticals as he wants

[eilinelsghost]

I’m quite fascinated by the way that you “play chess with LaCE” (love that phrasing, btw) especially when it comes to Russingon. I’m curious how and why you chose to write it as you did, particularly what seems to be Maedhros’ choice not to marry Fingon? If you intend to expand on this later in the series, of course I’ll gladly wait. But if you can say anything now, I do love your commentaries - they’re always so insightful. :)

So! This is a finnicky one to answer. But I will do my best! This got long, so I'll break it up by each part of the question:

Let's Play Chess with LaCE

The "let's play chess with LaCE" tag is sort of a joke to myself. It originated because that's what the whole thing felt like when I started working on the series. I've talked elsewhere about how the entire Atandil story came about because I was annoyed by seeing several Finrod/Bëor posts and went back to reread the Athrabeth to marinate in how impossible it was....and then came out of that obsessed with the two of them and with half this story pre-formed in my head. The upshot of this was that a) I knew I wanted to write this story, but b) it was very important to me that it operated "within" canon rather than disregarding it, and c) that I needed to find some way to do this where Finrod was (at least not consciously) a complete hypocrite in the Athrabeth.

But the tag is sort of a joke with myself because it also represents how Finrod is throughout the narrative. He's just in a constant chess-game with his own convictions, with his shifting understanding of what it all means, and with what actions are "right" given those factors. This is becoming increasingly apparent in the current installments where he is trying to find ways of inhabiting both things at once without crossing into what he fears would be transgressing Doom.

But Balan, for all he will say that Finrod "understands far more of our lore than do I of his philosophy" (The Warning Sounds Too Late), can play chess just as well and is perfectly capable of calling Finrod on his bullshit even when (especially when) it's his philosophy. And (spoiler) he will.

Portrayal of LaCE in Atandil

As far as "why I chose to write it as I did," I assume this means re how exactly Atandil depicts marriage happening in a LaCE-compliant story, specifically in the latest installment with Fingon/Maedhros? If so, the simple answer is because this is what LaCE says. I know we often talk about it as being "you have sex, you get elf-married," but that isn't actually what the text tells us.

Here is the oft-quoted statement that Elves can and did "marry thus of free consent."

But.

It is caveated with a parenthetical and we can't ignore that. Because "save blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name" is a requirement just as much as the bodily union is a requirement.

Even in the original description of a traditional ceremony, we are told that "it was the act of bodily union that achieved marriage, and after which the indissoluble bond was complete" (emphasis mine). It was the final act in the sequence of acts that culminated in an Elf-marriage - the one that completes it, not the thing within which the whole is encapsulated.

Hilariously (given the "just have sex and you're married!" assumptions), the blessings that this parenthetical references are the ones of the father and mother (see the screenshot below where these are cited as the blessings attached to the naming of the Name).

Obviously this was not going to be possible in many of the quick wartime marriages the text is discussing, so presumably the naming of Varda and Manwë in witness is something that is either taken on by other representatives who stand in for the parents in a barebones ceremony, or by the pair themselves if alone - as evidenced by endnote 9 in the first screenshot which directs us to this regarding Beren & Lúthien:

All that to say, that is the reason I chose to write LaCE the way I did: because it's how I've always understood the text.

Fingon & Maedhros

Regarding Fingon and Maedhros specifically, I'm afraid I don't really have a detailed answer for you here besides "it worked for the narrative."

Having concrete evidence of a) the incompleteness of Finrod's understanding of this so far and b) the fact that this is something done in practice by people he knows well and is not just a hypothetical was going to be necessary to set Finrod in a prolonged wobble about his own convictions re the whole situation. I won't expand on that here because we will go into that in the story itself, but that's the strategic reason for the specific Russingon depiction in Atandil.

Speaking generally though, I don't have particularly strong Russingon feelings and so I struggled quite a bit trying to figure out how to approach this. They sort of exist by default in the background for me, but I don't really have a lot of well-developed ideas around them. However I checked with some other friends who do have a lot more Russingon insight and who have also adhered to the nonmarried option (credit to @welcomingdisaster and @thelordofgifs for the following thoughts), and they said this is because both Fingon and Maedhros are already bound to other things: Fingon's loyalty is foremost to Fingolfin and Maedhros' is to the Silmarils/the Oath.

And that is my best attempt at answering! Sorry this got absurdly longwinded 😂

As always, thanks so much for the ask! It was really fun to have a reason to try wrangling my thoughts on this into written form.

[tmagpposting]

Alice’s Attitude

and why I don’t think it’s going to save her.

I haven’t seen a lot of people talking about the implication of Alice's attitude towards the incidents and horror elements so far, so I’m going to. Someone else may have already made a post about this, but I haven’t found anything yet, and I couldn’t find a way to get this out of my mind without writing it down. Naturally, I’m also going to inflict this long-winded and potentially needless analysis on all of you, since I spent 2 hours typing it out (sorry in advance). TW for blatant overuse of parentheticals and politics towards the end. This draws on content from TMAGP episodes 1-3 and TMA overall, particularly the series finale.

I feel like a lot of us going into TMAGP and having listened to TMA already were probably pleasantly surprised by Alice’s attitude of “The Horrors? Just say no!” since a lot of TMA revolved around the idea that curiosity and investigation of the fears usually doomed people to be consumed by one of them, as we saw with a lot of the Archive staff, particularly Jon. I certainly was. Though her ideas about how to deal with the incident reports are definitely somewhat callous, in the context of TMA, they feel very pragmatic, and I found myself thinking, “finally, a character who knows what genre she’s in and refuses to surrender to it.” I’ve been seeing a couple people agree with this, and say that her approach might even help her stay afloat when things start to escalate as the conflicts of TMAGP develop in the coming episodes. I thought that too, at least for a while. 

After thinking about it for several days, I don’t think this is the case. Given TMA’s themes and propensity for tragedy, and Jonny’s approach to tackling social issues, I don’t think Alice’s apathy is going to save her. In fact, I think it’s potentially going to be the character flaw that will doom her in the first place.

1. Alice already cares (not about the horrors, but about people)

To start with, I’d like to point out that Alice will only be able to maintain her apathy to a limited extent, and when people she cares about start being harmed, she is going to get involved. In fact, we can already see this happening. Ep 3 notably starts and ends with Alice making a plan to get Central IT involved in looking into their computers, when she tries to mention them to Colin in the first scene, and when she asks Sam to call them on her behalf in the final scene. I’d argue that the issue comes up because she’s concerned about Colin more than fixing the OIAR’s computers. She tells Sam it’s because Colin may not be able to handle FR3-D1 as well as he thinks he can since he’s been working on it forever with very little positive progress, but given the additional context of the starting scene, I think it’s reasonable to assume she also wants to meddle for Colin’s sake. In the first scene of ep 3, she seemingly talks more softly/slowly than usual (to me, it sounds like she’s trying to be soothing when compared to how she normally talks, even outside of the times she’s actually soothing FR3-D1), she doesn’t make too many digs at Colin as he sounds increasingly stressed, and she asks gently and subtly about calling Central IT for help when she is generally pretty direct when she seriously wants something (like all the times she repeatedly shuts down Sam’s questions because she wants him to stay out of danger). It sounds like she’s trying to slip it in as a half-joke, but Colin treats it as a genuine suggestion when he usually either brushes off her jokes or plays into them instead, so I think it was her actual intent to involve Central IT even at that point. Furthermore, Gwen tells Sam something along the lines of “Alice is the only one [Colin] tolerates” in a previous episode, they have good banter throughout so far, and Colin’s explosive reaction to Sam mentioning the app completely deflates when he learns it was Alice’s idea. All of this seemingly demonstrates a bond that goes pretty far beyond what I’d think of as a basic work relationship with no actual friendship involved. Colin is already pretty deep into investigating FR3-D1 to the point that it’s probably going to be detrimental for him based on him threatening/ranting at the computers in the first episode, and Alice is already trying to intervene on his behalf. Simply put, she is doing a pretty bad job of pretending not to care and staying out of it so far, and we’re only 3 episodes in.

With that in mind, I don’t even think Colin will be the primary reason she’ll get involved as the series goes on, and I actually think Sam is being set up to be the one to draw her into much of the conflict. She cares enough about Sam to find him a job when he’s having a rough time, based on their conversation in the bar, and she tells him not to care about the incidents precisely because she cares about him, and doesn’t want him to get sucked in and hurt by them. With Sam’s propensity for curiosity established and likely being set up to be one of his fatal flaws, Alice will probably get drawn into the conflict whether she likes it or not if/when Sam goes digging and actually stumbles on something dangerous later on. As a side note, I really do think Sam’s curiosity is being set up to be something big here, since he repeatedly wants to look into the Magnus Institute and says it’s a “blast from the past,” he wonders about how the code system works and how it could be improved, and he’s generally shown to ask a lot of questions about the OIAR, Gwen’s backstory, etc. He asks about things more often than I think he would if his questions were purely an expositional device for the audience and not actual characterization (I could make a post just about this, but I think other people have definitely already done that). Finally, our very first introduction to Alice as a character in TMAGP shows her trying and failing to be glib and uncaring about Teddy leaving, where she jokes with him casually before admitting, sincerely and somewhat hesitantly, “I’m gonna miss you.” If her failing to not care about something in the opening scene of the entire series isn’t going to turn out to be important, if not Jonny Sims style foreshadowing of some kind, I’ll eat my hat.

2. Apathy kind of sucks, actually (thematically and otherwise)

Alice being saved by her refusal to care, assuming she manages to maintain it, feels too much like an easy out for the kinds of stories TMA was trying to tell, and clashes with its sensibilities in my opinion. A lot of people fall into the trap of nihilistic apathy when thinking about the state of the world right now, and TMA even acknowledged this in the series with the Extinction beginning to emerge as a new entity/fear. Between worsening climate change, the gradual rise of bigotry and the increasing trend toward fascism in the western world (especially america, it sucks here), escalating international conflict, poverty and the worsening cost/standard of living, like the fact that a majority of people my age will probably never own a house and our college debt is going to eat us alive, etc., it feels like we’re all circling the drain and no one with the power to help is interested in doing anything other than making it worse to make themselves money. A lot of people think the only way to cope with that is to decide to not give a shit, which is a pretty natural response to being constantly confronted with worse and worse news every year that shows no sign of stopping. This has also naturally inspired a lot of doomerism and a rise in insincerity/irony poisoning and cynicism in popular culture that’s really hard to escape even if you avoid the news entirely.

However, the idea that not giving a shit about the problems in the world can somehow spare you from them is a) ludicrous, since they won’t go away if you decide to ignore them (a majority of the TMA statement givers didn’t previously know or care about the fears, and they got screwed over regardless), and b) definitely not supported by TMA’s cannon or themes. Surrendering to the idea of your own helplessness is precisely what TMA ends by specifically not doing. Jon sunk into a hopeless state of mind throughout S5, with the culmination of this process being his proposal to let the world end and allow the End to consume everything, including the rest of the fears. It wasn’t necessarily that Jon didn’t care or was apathetic, especially since one of his primary motivation was to avoid inflicting the fears on another universe, rather, he didn’t think anything could be done to stop the fears from destroying his world or whatever world they ended up in, which is the same deterministic mindset that Alice’s style of apathy stems from (“I can’t change or fix it, so I don’t care”). The other characters refusing this course of action and banishing the fears is what ultimately spares TMA’s universe from the sort of extinction it would’ve had if they’d accepted that it was hopeless and Jon had gone through with what he wanted. TMA ends with the central takeaway that you can’t give in to the idea you won’t be able to fix things because then you won’t try, and shows the characters subverting their helplessness and actually solving the problem of the fears by getting rid of it at the source (the ethics of sending the fears somewhere else are definitely debatable, but that’s a totally different post). The idea that Alice could be saved from the consequences of the problems in TMAGP’s world by choosing not to care flies in the face of the conclusion to the previous series. Alice’s refusal to care won’t save her from whatever TMAGP has in store, and judging by the events of TMA, fatalism and apathy might even seal her fate. 

Some of these points of evidence might be a little bit basic “water is wet” types of statements and I probably could’ve explained this in half the time, but I really do think that Alice’s apathy isn’t going to turn out to be very useful to her and I wanted to include everything I could think of that led me to believe that.

TLDR, Alice is just as screwed as the rest of the cast, if not more so, and her attitude is not going to get her out of it.

[earlgreytea68]

do you have a playlist of peterick songs 🩷

I don't actually have a playlist (my playlist is All Fall Out Boy Songs in one massive jumble lolol and MAYBE THAT IS THE PETERICK PLAYLIST) and I don't think I've really been asked this question before, but here's what I would say are my top Peterick songs:

Saturday: This is for obvious reasons for anyone who's been around, but if you're brand new here, the lyrics are Saturday are explicitly about the Patrick-and-Pete relationship ("Pete and I attacked the Lost Astoria with promise and precision and a mess of youthful innocence" / "Me and Pete, in the wake of Saturday"). They've said it's the first song they felt like they successfully collaborated on without throwing punches at each other lol. They play it at the end of almost every single concert and Pete abandons his bass to stand right by Patrick before he wanders out into the crowd. Sometimes he puts his elbow on Patrick's shoulder and shimmies his hip. They also, when they perform it, make sure to shout "more than an hour" at each other, no matter where they are on stage (and they are COMMITTED to this bit, we've seen them almost miss it on this tour and scramble to make the eye contact). Patrick also always points to Pete wherever he is on the stage when he sings "Pete and I," so we're clear who he's singing about. It's charming. Also, in the video, Pete and Patrick turn out to be the same person, and...let's just leave that there for now.

It's Not a Side Effect of the Cocaine, I Am Thinking It Must Be Love: The lyrics of this song are absolutely wild. "Why can you read me like no one else? I hide behind these words, but I'm coming out." For real, Pete Wentz? "We'll make them so jealous, we'll make them hate us." REPEATED MANY TIMES. Ugh. "Think of all the places where you've been lost and found...out." REPEATED TWICE. With so much emphasis on being found out. Not just found, the word always hangs as the would-be conclusion, and then the out is such a definitive stamp at the end. I don't know what these lyrics are other than wrestling with the fact that you're in love with your best friend and wondering about your sexuality, just saying lol

I've Got a Dark Alley and a Bad Idea That Says You Should Shut Your Mouth (Summer Song): I know that other people have other interpretations of this song, but to me "joke me something awful just like kisses on the necks of 'best friends'" is super Peterick-coded. Also the parenthetical of "Summer Song," again, I know other people have other interpretations but to me Patrick is always represented by summer in Pete's lyrics (the way he is also sunshine and golden).

7 Minutes in Heaven (Atavan Halen): I have an interpretation in this song that Patrick is the "you" in it. Patrick is the star he's trying to fixate on while his world is falling apart, Patrick is the one thing he wants to focus on to keep everything else out. Trying to forget everything that isn't Patrick, only it's not-working-not-working-not-working. "The only thing worse than not knowing is you thinking that I don't know": The way that Pete thought he had to be the Leader of this band, take care of this kid he'd forced into being the singer, and so even when he's a complete mess he's got to hold it together so Patrick doesn't realize it.

The (After) Life of the Party: I know what the official lyrics say but I've never heard Patrick sing that refrain clearly enough to convince me he's saying "cut it loose" instead of "could it last," and to me this song is the quintessential social butterfly / favorite dynamic, which is the Pete&Patrick dynamic. "Watch you work the room / could it last." Watch you blossom, will I lose you?

Disloyal Order of Water Buffaloes: In Pete's own words, this is a song about anyone you feel close to. Sometimes for him it was a girl, but honestly, sometimes it's Patrick. So. Here's a song about Patrick, according to Pete Wentz. I'm half-doomed and you're semi-sweet.

What a Catch, Donnie: The song Pete explicitly wrote for Patrick. "All I can think of is the way I'm the one who charmed the one who gave up on you." In my head, this convoluted sentence is Patrick struck by how much Pete is charmed by him, and how much Pete gives up on himself. Also, the video has Pete putting himself on a sinking ship and leaving Patrick with all their friends as they shove off into the hiatus and whatever, I can't deal with any of this hahaha. THE SONG ENDS WITH A MEDLEY OF THEIR GREATEST HITS TOGETHER, whatever, this stupid song, I honestly thought the fact that this was the last single before hiatus had to be made up lol

"From Now On, We Are Enemies": A hiatus-era release titled for a movie about an intense artistic relationship. A refrain that's about the composer who's never composed who has to sing the symphonies of the overdosed. And the problem is they only want what they can't have.

Miss Missing You: The song in which Patrick sings about being saved by hot whiskey eyes. Please Google "hot whiskey," and then take a look at Pete Wentz's eyes. This is another thing I can't deal with lol. Also, the "miss missing you" is an explicit response to a poem Pete wrote to Patrick before the hiatus, in which Pete said, "I miss you missing me." Patrick responds with the song, "I miss missing you." THESE TWO.

The Kids Aren't Alright: First of all, they very frequently and consistently have referred to their fans as "the kids" since day one, so there's that. Which kids aren't alright? Ours. Shut up. "And in the end, I'd do it all again, I think you're my best friend." WHATEVER.

Fourth of July: Again, I know other people have different interpretations of this song, but for me this song is soooo Peterick. It's the summer reference again, but it's also hiatus-y to me. "We were fireworks that went off too soon." "I said I'd never miss you but I guess you never know." Pete got vicious and angry heading into hiatus and burned everything down, but you know what? "May the bridges I have burned light my way back home." "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't mean any of it." I could go on and on about this song, I love the words to this song, but I just want to say, "I'm sorry every song's about you," is just...a lot. And then followed by "the torture of small talk with someone you used to love," and if that doesn't smack of the awkward end of the hiatus, Idk.

Twin Skeleton's (Hotel in NYC): There is a LOT in AB/AP, a LOT that these boys seem to be working through, and it's a lot of hiatus feelings, and this song always makes me think of everything breaking down. "I need a new partner in crime, and you -- you shrug"????? THIS LINE KILLS ME EVERY SINGLE TIME. And it's really a song about trying to hold everything together ("hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on," it says over and over) but everything is still falling apart into dramatics ("I can just die laughing on your spiral of shame" is another line that hits like a slap in the face).

Bishops Knife Trick: Pete Wentz in the early 2000s, famously: I'm only gay from the waist up. Pete Wentz in the late 2010s, in a lyric: I'm in spiritual revolt from the waist down. Honestly, enough said.

Hold Me Like a Grudge: With that "thaw out my freezer-burn feelings from 20 summers" early on, this song is setting us up for being a song at least about Fall Out Boy, but "part-time soulmate, full-time problem" sounds like it's probably just about one person lol.

Heaven, Iowa: This song is a love song and to me it's their love song and that's just all I have to say actually hahahaha.

Okay, this was quick, I'm sure people have more! The joy is how ambiguously the lyrics can all be interpreted.

[thejewitches]

So I kinda grew up in an evangelical environment, and I'm just now able to expose myself to and learn about other religions. The only things I learned about Judaism growing up were likely very twisted to suit the teachings of the pastors. I heard a lot about "messianic Jews" (which I now know is very much not a thing) and how "a lot" of Jewish people converted because they began to believe that Jesus was the messiah (yeah it was bad, really bad)

Anyways since I'm trying to educate myself, I'm trying to not just read about other religions, but if possible, I'm trying to read the holy books of the religions as well. I talked to a Muslim friend I had at work and he told me I could read the Quran (I guess I felt weird about reading it because I wasn't looking to convert to Islam). In the same vein, could I read the Talmud to learn more? I was told that the Bible and the Talmud were the same growing up (so there was no point in reading it, according to my elders, also incorrect information). Is there a particular translation that would be better to read?

Very sorry for all the parenthetical statements I was trying to keep it brief but I have severe adhd so thoughts just come at they please. Love your blog, and I'm very happy to be learning a lot from you already, and unlearning a lot in the process, so thank you for posting resources and the like. Very appreciated.

Could I read the Talmud to learn more?

The short answer is: Reading the Talmud without knowing how or what you are reading will not give you the information you are looking for. The sentiment of reading to learn more is wonderful, but on your own without any prior learning, it is tantamount to reading a book in a language you don't speak to understand the poetry of the language better. You can do it, but you won't have the tools to decipher it in any meaningful way. If you want to learn more about Judaism, studying Talmud is definitely not the place to start.

There is something called Daf Yomi where Jews study one single page of Talmud every single day. With 2,711 pages in the Talmud, one Daf Yomi cycle takes about 7 years, 5 months--and it takes this long because studying the Talmud to understand the Talmud is not just reading a book. There are ways you can just read it, sure, but that doesn't mean you will be learning or understanding what you are reading in the way that Jews do (just as you can read a series of random words without actually comprehending what is in front of you).

If you're looking to study Talmud, have you studied Torah with Jews? Begun to understand the Jewish perspective on the Torah? How we approach our texts with a completely different eye than Christians? How the Old Testament you grew up with may look nothing like what we know and love?

If you're certain that the answer to those questions is yes, and you feel ready to start learning Talmud, see if there is a local rabbi in your area who offers a class or a seminar. Many are free. It is meant to be a community activity. But chances are, that isn't the case.

But frankly: you don't need to study Talmud to learn about Jews and Judaism. There is no need for that. The best way to learn about Judaism is always going to be listening to Jews. Listen to our conversations, hear us, and read the resources we create to share about Judaism. One of the greatest barriers that people often face is shedding the unrealized paradigm and perspective that is left from an evangelical upbringing. Challenging those perspectives is paramount.

If you feel more than a small draw to know, you can go ahead and study Torah, and maybe eventually study Talmud, but if all you want is to know more about Judaism, studying Talmud is not step one.

This is the layout of a Talmud page in Hebrew--it is much more than just a straightforward reading, especially if you want to genuinely engage with the text.

This is, of course, but the opinion of one. The Jewish community is made up of more opinions than individuals and all deserve to be heard.

[o-uncle-newt]

Cabin Pressure Advent Day 12: Limerick

LIIIIIMMMMEEERRRRIIICCCCKKKK!

OK so full disclosure, I wrote this yesterday. The two reasons are a) I knew I'd be busy today with no time to do it and b) after Kuala Lumpur I needed to get in a listen of my third favorite Cabin Pressure episode to remind myself what I love so much about this show. It was a Good Decision.

I mean, what is there to say that hasn't already been said by so many? It's hilariously funny, beautifully constructed, full of great character moments, and gives us a game of 20 Questions to play alongside of. (Though I WILL admit, the visual of a game of charades to try to convey/guess what's in the box... does definitely tickle me lol.) There are so many different moving pieces and they all slot in together SO WELL.

I said in a previous post that Limerick is the episode I listen to when I'm feeling lonely. (Incidentally, it's also probably the episode I've listened to the most, period. I wish there was a way to figure out how many times, because I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100+.) I decided that while listening this time I'd try to bear that in mind, and see what it is about the episode that just works for those moments. And I think that there are a bunch of different things that all work together-

For one thing, and this almost doesn't need to be said, but it's just... really funny! And listening to funny things is just generally a great way to feel better about things. Pretty self-explanatory.

It's also the episode that, more than any other, is us basically eavesdropping on a bunch of people talking to each other and hanging out. It's in real time, as though we're just listening in on the satcom or whatever, and there's something nice, when you're alone, about listening in on others, especially others who you've come to love, having a nice time.

More than that, loneliness is a bit of a theme in this episode. Martin and Carolyn admit that they're lonely in their personal lives, and Douglas, after initially lying through his teeth about it, admits that he's newly alone as well, after being betrayed by a wife who he loved (I'm still not over the brown sauce thing). For one thing, when you're lonely, hearing other people say they're lonely is always nice; for another, knowing that Martin and Carolyn, at least, will end up meeting people who make them happy is a nice booster.

And for a third thing... well, it plays into what I've been saying about how so much of what I love about this show is how characters become closer through showing vulnerability. Feeling alone can be (almost tautologically) isolating, and admitting it to other people can take a lot of courage, especially when it's tied up in other related insecurities. Martin's loneliness is tied in, in his mind at least, with his not being a "real" paid airline pilot; Carolyn's is admitted to despite her wanting to project that feeling of control and fulfillment that running her own business gives her; and Douglas's... well, it's basically a semi-deconstruction of a mythos. Being left is bad enough, but being cheated on... especially for someone who said back in Fitton that he and Helena were united by a shared belief that he is terrific, this is a pretty big sea change to admit to having happened. And it's a big thing for him to admit he's upset about, and to accept condolences about from Martin; he moves past that part pretty quickly by making jokes about tai chi, but he's much less bitter than he was back in Gdansk, when it was a lot fresher and he felt a lot more unbalanced. An episode where Douglas is vulnerable will always be an interesting episode- and one that really symbolizes that they're becoming inextricably connected.

(I'll also add parenthetically that the flight being one that carries horse sperm from one end of the world to the other is an interesting symbolism for loneliness and lack of connection... and leave it there because, like Arthur, thinking about it too long mildly grosses me out lol.)

Anyway, so much else to say about it but I won't belabor the point- just to say.... this episode, like Gdansk, has been so incredibly important to me for so long that it's almost hard to even try to break it down into elements. And I'll take this moment to thank John Finnemore for having written it.

Tomorrow (so to speak)... Molokai!

[cosmiccannibalcamille]

Jupiter trine Pluto: What YOU Need to Know about this RARE transit

     About a week ago, someone (a man) made an arbitrary comment on TikTok, essentially saying, “Can astrologers [i.e.: ME] stop making a big deal out of everything that’s going on?” And as much as I wanted to slap him and say, “Don’t tell me how to react!” I understood what he was saying. Sorta. He’s tired of the histrionic hype, the mountain-out-of-a-molehill message so many astrologers on TikTok (including myself) use when talking about the astrology of 2024. 

     But here’s the thing: there are truly SO MANY major, once-in-a-lifetime transits happening in 2024 (Pluto in Aquarius, Jupiter conjunct Uranus, Aries-Libra eclipses, Jupiter Cazimi in Taurus) that it would be bad practice not to get excited about them, to get YOU excited about them. Because that’s what I’m supposed to do as an astrologer / writer: inform YOU about need-to-know transits, so that YOU can be prepared and better work with them. 

     Well, guess what? On June 2, we have ANOTHER rare cosmic event: Jupiter in Gemini trine retrograde Pluto in Aquarius. This alignment between Jupiter and Pluto in these two air signs hasn’t happened for 350 years! So, yes, it is MAJOR. It is RARE. And it is worth your attention. But will it bring MAJOR changes, transformations, and chthonic unearthing? That depends…

 If you're intrigued by the profound shifts this Jupiter-Pluto trine can bring, you'll love exploring these themes further in my debut novel, Jupiter Returns, a laugh-out-loud story about an aspiring astrologer trying to make it big during her Jupiter return in Gemini. Learn more about it here: Jupiter Returns official page.

Jupiter Trine Pluto MEANING in Astrology

     Pluto is the planet of hidden riches. Think: Wealth. Power. Subterranean and subliminal resources (gold, oil, diamonds) that lie beyond the surface, underneath the muck, mire, and (often literal) mud. Pluto’s purpose is to help you exhume these parts of yourself to transform, regenerate, and be reborn. When Pluto is activated by another planet, it triggers the digging up of something from the underground, the underworld, the treasure that dwells beneath the surface. 

     Jupiter is the planet of plenty, ruling over your urge to expand. So, optimism (grandiosity), magnanimity (extravagance), faith (overextension), generosity (excess), and growth (self-extension). You’ll notice the parentheticals after each of these associated rulerships. These are included because Jupiter also rules excess, amplifying and embellishing whatever it touches. It makes things bigger, more important, more prominent and more noticeable.

     So, this coming together of Jupiter and Pluto is significant because it combines the expansive, optimistic, and philosophical energy of Jupiter with the transformative, intense, and regenerative power of Pluto. The trine aspect (which is actually a Jupiter aspect in nature) facilitates a harmonious flow of energy, making it easier to harness the positive qualities of both planets for personal and collective growth. 

Get the FULL SCOOP on this Once-in-a-lifetime Jupiter-Pluto trine (including YOUR horoscope for it) on the Cosmic Almanac

[sophia-zofia]

Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute, and is not a State Party (i.e. member state) of the ICC, the global tribunal established in 2002 to hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Of specific concern to Israel was that the Rome Statute, in Article 8.2.(b).(viii), defines as a “war crime” the “transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies,

or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the occupied territory within or outside this territory”. This closely reflects Article 49 of the IV Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

which defines such activities as a “grave breach”, the Convention’s equivalent of a war crime. Other articles, such as 7.1.(j) which defines “apartheid” as “a crime against humanity”, became a serious concern more recently,

as the longstanding judgement of Palestinians on this matter was endorsed by the leading Israeli and international human rights organizations.

The ICC is only empowered to prosecute individuals, not states. (The conduct of states is adjudicated by the International Court of Justice, the ICJ, a separate institution also located in The Hague).

The Office of the ICC Prosecutor can conduct investigations into alleged violations of the Rome Statute only if either 1) a case is referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), 2) requested by at least one ICC member state,

or 3) initiated by the Prosecutor, provided it is authorized to move forward by a panel of ICC judges known as the “pre-trial chamber”.

Given that the US, which like Israel refused to join the ICC, has veto powers at the Security Council, and that Palestine was not an ICC member, Israel was not particularly concerned that the ICC Prosecutor would independently seek to initiate an investigation of its conduct.

So it sufficed with periodic tirades dismissing, demonizing, and delegitimizing the Court. That began to change in 2015 when Palestine, which has the status of Permanent Observer State at the UN, was admitted to the ICC and permitted to formally ratify the Rome Statute.

The Palestinian leadership had for many years stalled on this and other initiatives promoting the application of international law to the Palestinians. This was, parenthetically, not out of fear of potential ICC prosecutions of Palestinians.

Hamas, whose members are the most likely to be prosecuted if the ICC investigates Palestinian violations, in fact called for Palestine’s accession to the ICC, in both word and writing.

In writing, because Hamas propaganda had been denouncing Abbas for promoting Palestine’s ICC application at a snail’s pace out of fear of the Israeli and Western response.

Abbas responded by insisting that Hamas and Islamic Jihad sign a document supporting the application before it was submitted, so he could not later be accused by them of joining the Court in order to have his rivals extradited to The Hague.

When the deed was done, Palestinians from across the political spectrum welcomed it, and stated they were prepared to see all alleged violations of the Rome Statute committed in Palestine investigated by the ICC.

Hamas’s criticisms of Abbas may have been propaganda, but they were also correct. Israel and its US and European sponsors had from the outset made clear their opposition to Palestine seeking to join the ICC, and demanded that it desist.

The Europeans, who unlike the US and Israel have joined the ICC, were in a particular pickle. As a European diplomat stated to me at the time:

“We don’t want the Palestinians to put is in a position where we have to choose between our commitment to international law and our commitment to Israel”. In other words, they didn’t want to expose the rotten core of their rules-based international order,

where the rules only apply to everyone else. When they failed to prevent Palestinian accession, Israel in particular went berserk. It began withholding Palestinian taxes it was legally obliged to transfer to the Palestinian Authority,

imposed a variety of restrictions on Palestinian officials, and threatened to punish the PA in multiple additional ways. The US also made its displeasure clear, but directed the brunt of its retaliatory measures directly at the ICC.

Washington at one imposed sanctions on Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, normally reserved for designated criminals. It was Washington’s way of informing the ICC it had no right to investigate either Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians or US conduct in Afghanistan.

In 2002 the US had already adopted legislation known as The Hague Invasion Act, which authorizes the US military to invade The Netherlands, a fellow NATO member, and free any US citizen in ICC custody.

Not clear how Nato’s collective defense provisions enshrined in Article 5 would operate under such circumstances….

The Europeans, duplicitous as ever, kept confirming their support for the ICC while submitting vacuous legal arguments to the Court insisting it had no jurisdiction over Palestine.

In doing so they came within a hair of endorsing Israel’s position that the ICC is an illegitimate body. The Dutch government for its part indicated it could not take a position on the matter because as the state that hosts the ICC,

it was obliged to preserve its neutrality in such matters. Yet several years later it demonstratively awarded the ICC several million Euro to support its investigation of Russian conduct in Ukraine, an initiative it repeatedly and publicly endorsed.

In the event, the Palestinians in 2015 submitted an application to the Office of the ICC Prosecutor to investigate violations of the Rome Statute in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967, beginning in 2014.

The Court wasted years adjudicating matters of jurisdiction and competence, before finally confirming, in 2021, that it had a mandate to conduct an investigation.

Which brings us back to the scandal known as Karim Khan. In previous functions, for example investigating the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia and that by ISIS in Iraq, he developed a reputation as an attention whore of sorts.

Didn’t achieve much by way of results, but always found his way to the television cameras. A British citizen, his candidacy as ICC Prosecutor was energetically supported by the UK government. His candidacy was also championed by the US and Israel,

two non-member states opposed to the very existence of the Court. In 2021, Khan narrowly won election to a nine-year term. Unless he’s forced out, we’re stuck with him until 2030.

Some held the forlorn hope that Khan would prioritize efforts to revive the ICC’s stature and reputation, which by the time he took office was being widely derided as the “International Caucasian Court” and “International Criminal Court for Africa”,

on account of the cases it chose – and chose not to – prosecute. In protest at such biases, South Africa at one point temporarily renounced its ICC membership.

In practice, Khan wasted no time aligning his agenda with that of his sponsors. Almost immediately, he informed the UN Security Council that he would prioritize only those cases referred to him by the Council and essentially ignore the rest.

The ICC Palestine investigation, such as it was, effectively ceased to exist.

Yet when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, which the UNSC could not have referred to the ICC for investigation because of Moscow’s power of veto, Khan immediately reversed course on his previous commitments.

It took him only a week to pop up in Kiev, informing any and every journalist within a 100-mile radius that his investigation was already active. A little over a year later he indicted none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Throughout this period, the ICC’s Palestine investigation remained non-existent.

There was considerably less spring in his step as the latest crisis in the Middle East erupted on 7 October. It was only at the very end of October that he took the trouble to visit the region.

Claiming he had been denied entry to the Gaza Strip, he spoke to the assembled media in Cairo, where he delivered a lengthy and impassioned denunciation of the 7 October Palestinian attacks,

announced his availability to work with the Israeli authorities to prosecute those responsible for violations of the Rome Statute on that day, yet pointedly refrained from any reference to Israeli war crimes,

which his predecessor Bensouda had already in 2019 announced were being committed. Rather, his message to Israel was of a more general nature: that it had clear obligations under international law and would be held accountable for (unspecified) violations.

Khan further, and disingenuously, claimed that in 2021 he established the “first dedicated team to investigate the Palestine situation”.

Even though this team has in contrast to that sent to investigate Russian conduct in Ukraine never been referenced or heard from, Khan on 3 December stated he would “further intensify” its efforts.

But this was nothing compared to his next visit, undertaken in early December to Israel in coordination with the Israeli government which, it needs to be emphasized once again, has rejected the legitimacy of the ICC,

launched extensive campaigns of vilification to delegitimize it, and has consistently obstructed its efforts to investigate Israeli conduct vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

Initially described as an “unofficial” visit (perhaps he entered the country wearing a disguise designed for Inspector Clouseau by Auguste Balls),

he accepted Israel’s rejection of a visit to the Gaza Strip as a condition for meeting with Israeli families who lost loved ones on 7 October. In an effort to conceal and whitewash this dirty deal,

he at the end of his visit took a short trip to Ramallah to meet with PA President Abbas. Seeing through his agenda, Palestinian human rights organizations unanimously refused to meet with him, and denounced his visit.

The most problematic aspect of Khan’s visit was his concluding statement. While claiming his trip was “not investigatory in nature”, he nevertheless allowed himself to establish, as a matter of settled fact,

that the attacks of 7 October “represent some of the most serious international crimes that shock the conscience of humanity”, for good measure denouncing Hamas as a “terror organization”.

If Khan had denounced Israel and its crimes against the Palestinians with similar polemics and conviction, this would have multiplied rather than limited the damage inflicted by Khan.

This is for the simple reason that the ICC investigation, if it indeed exists, is still in its initial stages, yet the prosecutor has already announced its conclusions.

In the event Khan had a very different take on Israel’s conduct. Addressing the slaughter of thousands of children and razing of entire neighborhoods to the ground,

he went no further than to assert that “credible allegations of crimes” that may – or may not – have been committed, should be “the subject of timely, independent, examination and investigation”.

With respect to Israel shutting off the food, water, medicine, and fuel supply to the Gaza Strip, an assessment of which requires no more than a diploma in basket weaving, he would not go beyond insisting that the supply had to be guaranteed,

and “must not be diverted or misused by Hamas.” Gleefully skipping over the patently genocidal statements of Israeli leaders that might have helped him connect the dots he, much like Western politicians, took the easy way out

and instead denounced the violence of Israel’s settlers, as if these form an independent vigilante force rather than auxiliary militia implementing state policy.

The reason Khan tread so lightly also reflects what appears to be the most disturbing element of his agenda.

Pursuant to the Rome Statute the ICC only prosecutes cases where national authorities have demonstrably failed to ensure accountability. In this context, every examination of Israel’s judicial system with respect to violations of Palestinian rights,

has concluded that it is essentially a sham, and exists to provide legal justification for such violations and/or exonerate perpetrators.

Yet Khan emphasized that he stands “ready to engage with relevant national authorities [i.e. Israel] in line with the principle of complementarity at the heart of the Rome Statute”.

In other words, Khan will prosecute Palestinians, and Israeli violations will be adjudicated by Israel’s court system. Both with predictable results.

In order to keep this short, I conclude with posting an article @hasmikegian and I recently wrote for @PassBlue on why Karim Khan is not fit for purpose. I am also indebted to her for multiple insights and substantial input into this thread.

https://www.passblue.com/2023/11/28/is-the-icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-fit-for-purpose/

[48787]

I am literally always correct about media

Three episodes into Bravern.

I saw the first episode, not even, the first fucking MOMENT it said "This is a training exercise" I knew, I fucking KNEW, I was in for the Evangelion Rebuild 0.00 You Do (Not) Want To Watch Evangelion experience. And my Brothers in Shinji Ikari's goop, I'm ignoring that parenthetical because thesis never exist in the first place, and parents never exist in the first place, it's all just the complete and constant Holy Trinity of living in the present for the present. And oh boy that Angel sure is Cruel.

If you don't think I'm speaking "Truth" you need to realize two things about me:

1. I've seen footage. They've shown us so much, and broke show-don't-tell DELIBERATELY multiple times to address the immediate concern that the audience should be asking IMMEDIATELY if they've seen the same footage as well (Like how it obviously has a 1 to 1 Evangelion LCL bit but it's green and referenced as "From The Abyss" doing that absolutely devilish charm of manipulating by never telling lies, only different truths, further proven by "Wait how do you know about that?" Or how the outro is clearly on a stage but then it almost tears or blurs into stars. You fuckers remember MyHouse.wad right?? You know this shit means something, right??) Or the invocation of very very very specific tropes followed by another very very very specific trope, or the deliberate subversion of trope followed by a character deliberately trying to force the trope out of subversion into genuinity. Many such cases, too many to list. I've just seen footage and I don't know how people don't see the fucking massive amount of narrative foils-per-minute, both within the show and connecting outside the show. The Evangelion shit is easy, it goes far deeper than that. (A good example is how they were clearly invoking starship troopers-y Earth patriotism and then subverted SST by the mixing of genders in a changing room seeming awkward and like it's not supposed to happen but happening anyway to form an extremely subtle juxtaposition.)

2. I stay noided. Every fucking subtle change of the framing device, of a characters features (Like in the outro alongside choice moments in the show, similar to the effect Cyberpunk Edgerunners that I can first remember coming from Evangelion), the minor moments of nonfalsifiability, the constant IN CHARACTER "Don't think about it just do it my way and it'll be okay" explanations that only rhetoric-obsessed mentally ill person like me would understand (Followed by things that only make sense if you knew what to look for), the fact that the intros and outros are literal propaganda that the audience WANTS to buy into (I believe representing the passion the fucking love hypercube evokes and each member experiences uniquely), the consistency of certain stylistic choices (Like conflating the stars and crosses to focus on Evangelion just a little more), the deliberate choice to use an entirely new stylistic transition or in between just to pretend like it wasn't anything important at all, it all MUST have meaning. The whole POINT is the power of inspiration and the neutrality of power being two coexisting ideas. The clothing metaphors, the masking metaphors, the gay metaphors that form subtle trans metaphors that form certain asexual-aromantic-agender metaphors, the literal fucking AT fields that are broken by vulnerability. Lewis (The current parallel to Bravern) loses but chooses what's cool so he can try it better next. Ishami (The current parallel to Lulu.. not Vi Brittania I swear, absolutely zero connection at all, tooooootally) is more "serious" but far more vulnerable and has his masks broken down.

They're fucking in a love triangle but tricked you it's actually a fucking square that's been folded so the corners are touching. Which corners are touching which? Good question asshole, it's all of them.

Someone thought "the MegOp ship is pretty cool. If they weren't around would it be Hotrod/Rodimus and Soundwave instead? They are kind of thematic opposites to both their normal foils anyway." and then made a whole show about that after everyone who ever heard that either didn't see enough footage or couldn't stay noided long enough to realize what a genius they were. And since no one understood just how much context builds up to even being able to think that in the first place, they just made the perfect show about manufacturing consent. For what? Literally anything and everything, including nothing.

I know exactly how fucked up the polycule formed when a mortal dares to ask "What if the three parts of the Holy Trinity, like, kissed and fucked and made out?" would be because I dare to ask it constantly, I am living it, we all are. It's the Divine Comedy, it is hell, it is chicken it is eggs it is in between your legs (10 points if you've seen enough footage to get this), and above all else it's hot as fuck and makes me want to never give up and live forever, no matter who you are no matter what you love doing.

I love this fucking show, I can't wait to finish it so I can be proven right on all accounts.

Y'all dumb motherfuckers keep refusing to understand Evangelion, your hubris makes you think you're somehow above Shinji, that you'd be different if you were put in his shoes. And that will always mean people like Lulu and Bravern will always exploit you for the love of doing it.

I have so many thoughts about this show and they're all right and if you think a single one of them is wrong you will literally be proven wrong because I will always be right, in time and out of time.

Maybe the next post or two will be more coherent since I'm taking a break, but I should actually finish the show first so I can gloat even harder about being objectively correct about everything in the universe ever.

[kingsmoot]

@worlds-best-sippycup replied to your post “Ok, so. It's interesting and really sad to me that...”:

Oh yeah absolutely I get you that Tyrion is on the side of the angels in this moment from the Westerosi perspective - but I /also/ think we aren't /supposed/ to use that as a complete excuse in this one moment, we're supposed to kind of put our 'different morality' lens that we tend to use for ASOIAF aside for a minute, because /Tyrion/ is putting it aside for a minute, knowing that sex with Sansa would be very very wrong but also wanting it.

this is an interesting way to frame moral engagement with the text and i agree with you! i think in-world by westeros standards tyrion is a saint and i think irl by me-standards that scene makes my skin crawl (as it is intended to imo)

@worlds-best-sippycup replied to your post “Ok, so. It's interesting and really sad to me that...”:

Essentially it's his morality that makes it immoral. And foreshadows him doing so many terrible things in ADWD as a self-destructive maneuver IMO.

i also think this is an interesting point of tension too because the longer sansa fails to return tyrion's desires, the more bitter and resentful he becomes precisely because (imo) he knows he is behaving like a saint

tyrion is well aware that his actions are unheard of in westeros and that he is being far more gracious and accommodating to his 13 year old child bride than anyone else in his position would be. and the longer that goes on the more resentful he becomes of it. why isn't sansa grateful for his heroism? why can sansa not even see the heroism in his gesture because he is so outwardly monstrous? (also, as much as sansa does talk about tyrion being ugly, and about wanting to marry a handsome knight, and as much as i do not believe that sansa would have found tyrion to be comely or in any way an "acceptable" match regardless of how the war had played out... i think it is VERY SIGNIFICANT that tyrion is a lannister, and the lannisters have been keeping sansa as their prisoner/hostage for like two years now and also killed ned, cat, and robb, and presumably at this point killed arya.... so!!) (this parenthetical is here because i see people talking about how unfair, cruel, or unkind sansa is to tyrion because she's being abelist, and in fairness she is also abelist towards willas when he was suggested as a match for her, but also to be fair sansa is a 13 year old girl being held in captivity by the people who murdered her family)

@worlds-best-sippycup replied to your post “Ok, so. It's interesting and really sad to me that...”:

I think... the 'smallfolk POV' thing specifically on age of consent, if we could call it that, is lacking because... Arya is /nine/, and she's /constantly/ heckled. Granted, I can think of other 'well that was a /villain/' moments for a lot of those but still, it's not great. I said the smallfolk might have a different opinion on this bc most people have an inbuilt disgust reaction to mentions of csa etc.

@worlds-best-sippycup replied to your post “Ok, so. It's interesting and really sad to me that...”:

And I assumed Westeros would have the same, even if it differed on the age of adulthood.

​arya is threatened constantly with rape and assault and every time it happens i also remember that she is nine, and i think of my baby cousin who is nine, and i black out for an unknown amount of time

baby arya all alone on the kingsroad is so gut wrenching... there's so many great moments that really highlight how TINY she is and really make the Horrors stand out so much more because of it (her forgetting that the flayed man of the dreadfort is on her doublet, her telling gendry she knows what a brothel is it's like an inn with girls!!! me crying!!)

[eliteprepsat]

About every other Writing and Language class I teach, students ask me how to use the em dash ( — ), so named because it is the length of a capital M in traditional typesetting (Mac users hold down Shift + Option and press the minus key, and PC users hold down the Alt key and type 0151 on the numeric keypad). Besides the semicolon ( ; ), the em dash is the least understood and most frequently abused piece of punctuation in the English language.  

If mastered, the em dash can be a versatile tool for adding emphasis and flair to an otherwise pedestrian sentence. For the purposes of the SAT, you don’t need to practice incorporating the em dash into your own writing—though you might want to—as much as you need to be able to spot correct and incorrect usages in Writing and Language passages (see what I did there?).  

Em Dashes as Parentheses or Commas (Most Common)

The above sentence is an example of the most common use of the em dash on the SAT. There, two em dashes stand on either side of the parenthetical subordinate clause “though you might want to.” The em dashes set this clause aside as something of an afterthought, not essential to the meaning or grammar of the clauses surrounding it.

When a pair of em dashes is used to set off a parenthetical phrase or clause, they are interchangeable with commas and parentheses.

So, you might see that sentence written like this:

. . . you don’t need to practice how to incorporate the em dash into your own writing, though you might want to, as much as you need to be able to spot correct and incorrect usages . . .

Or like this:

. . . you don’t need to practice how to incorporate the em dash into your own writing (though you might want to) as much as you need to be able to spot correct and incorrect usages . . .

Grammatically, these sentences are identical. The only difference is emphasis (the em dashes emphasize the parenthetical clause most and the parentheses emphasize it least).  

Em Dash as Semicolon

Most of my advanced students know that two dashes together set off a parenthetical, but many fall into a common trap: they think that when there is one em dash in a sentence, there always needs to be another.

They’re right that the sentence below would be wrong with only one em dash:

. . . you don’t need to practice how to incorporate the em dash into your own writing—though you might want to as much as you need to be able to spot correct and incorrect usages in Writing and Language passages. . .

That missing em dash creates a mess in the second half of the sentence. For a sentence like the one above, you also can’t mix and match punctuation—you can’t begin with an em dash and follow it up with a comma or a parenthesis, for example.

But in a sentence like the one immediately above, you only need one em dash. There, the em dash functions like a semicolon; that is, it introduces a main clause that is closely related to the preceding clause.

So, you might see that sentence read:

. . . you also can’t mix and match punctuation; you can’t begin with an em dash and follow it up with a comma or a parenthesis, for example.

Both the semicolon and the em dash are acceptable.  

Em Dash as Comma

 Unlike a semicolon, an em dash can also be placed between a main clause and a subordinate clause. For example, this sentence is ungrammatical:

A Lannister always pays his debts; as he should.

The semicolon here should act like a period, but the words after the semicolon do not make a complete sentence, so the semicolon above creates a fragment.

But this sentence is perfectly grammatical:

A Lannister always pays his debts—as he should.

This sentence could also read this way:

A Lannister always pays his debts, as he should.

Grammatically, the em dash and the comma have the same function here: they separate a main clause (“A Lannister always pays his debts”) and a subordinate clause (“as he should”). Again, the only difference is emphasis (the em dash adds a bit of drama to the subordinate clause).  

Em Dash as Colon

Colons are used after main clauses to introduce definitions, lists, or elaborations. An em dash can be used for the same purposes. For example:

In 1886, cytologist Richard Altman used a dye technique in identifying what he then called “bioblasts,” which would later come to be known as mitochondria: the powerhouse of the cell.

Here the colon introduces a definition of the term “mitochondria.” You might see an em dash here, too:

. . . known as mitochondria—the powerhouse of the cell.

Again, the grammar of these sentences is identical: a noun phrase follows the punctuation. The difference, again, is emphasis, the em dash providing a bit more flair than the colon.  

What about the Hyphen and the En Dash?

The em dash has cousins.

The hyphen ( - ) is very common. We can’t get too deep into its uses here (and anyway, its uses are not tested on the SAT, at least not yet). But you should know that hyphens link compound modifiers before nouns, such as “well-known album,” “nineteenth-century literature,” and “never-ending journey.” An exception to this rule is when the first term in the compound modifier is an –ly adverb, such as “greatly exaggerated claim” or “patiently waiting student.”

The en dash ( ­– ) is less common (for Mac users, hold down the option key and press the minus key). Its most common use is as a substitute for the word “to” between numbers. For example:

Read chapters 12–15 for homework. The event will take place August 13–18. The 2017–18 NBA season will kick off October 17.

To get into the habit of mastering dashes, keep an eye out for them when you read, and ask yourself what kind of dash you’re seeing and how it’s operating. For em dashes, you should ask: parentheses, semicolon, comma, or colon? The em dash can seem unwieldy and difficult at first, but reading and writing with them can liven up a piece of writing—and create emphasis when needed.

[this-daydream-is-dangerous-13]

Harry's voice breaking at around 3:52 while trying to dodge explaining 'If I Could Fly' is so heartbreaking 💔😭

Perfect being a love song and explaining it the way he did doesn't give me the impression that he wanted a forever with Blondie and marry her... If Taylor wanted something solid and to be sure that the person who she is with wasn't gonna bail on her someday out of nowhere then hearing lyrics like these might have been one of the reasons why she chose YB over Harry in late 2016:

I might never be the hands you put your heart in

Or the arms that hold you any time you want them

But that don't mean that we can't live here in the moment

'Cause I can be the one you love from time to time

https://youtu.be/fsv6KmlY9F8?feature=shared

Anon, ouch! That video—he was so exhausted; it felt like a precursor to the “this movie feels like a real movie” interview in Venice last fall—was packed with him trying to dodge answers about vulnerable songs. Awww, buddy.

A couple things about Perfect:

- It’s a co-write. There are sections that are (so very obviously) written by H, while others are written by LT. Some of the phrasing around being a flaky partner is wording that H never really uses when he writes.

- that said, H does have a collab with Jack on Alfie’s Song and it’s parenthetical title is “Not So Typical Love Song”. Kind of like how he describes this.

- this is the era he is writing Two Ghosts (which he holds for HS1), and perhaps also starts work on Hunger. He is really not certain what she wants, or how to move forward. In the past, he had agreed to be one of her many options (as described in JALBOYH). This songs feels like he thinks she wants that again. Like he’s throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks?

So, maybe Blondie was put off by this? But look at some of his solo write lyrics on this very same album:

Does that seem like someone wanting to bail? Or this:

And the very first song he writes for his solo album (a story he retold this June on Wembley n4)? Is this:

He is convinced that they belong together, in all situations.

And what he is offering at 22 to a more mature almost 27 year-old whose Mom/closest confidante had cancer, is a non-specific future. One filled with love, certainly, but full of potential downside and risk, media scrutiny and proximity to people she wanted to avoid.

As he is launching his solo career, his main supports beyond notoriously silent Mitch Rowland are the Jeff Azoff connections. Many of whom were tied to the K-J family who’d made her life hell. Jeff’s Mom’s bestie is Kris; his sister’s is KKW; his girlfriend’s bestie is Kendall. Way, way, way too close.

And YB - high above the whole scene. Seemingly well-adjusted with a low key vibe, on the cusp of becoming the next big thing as an actor. Much less risk. A breath of fresh air at the time.

Except…we all know how the whole thing plays out: weak, mediocre man ultimately becomes resentful of Blondie and tries to make her small. Man, I hate that guy!

Anyway - thank you for the ask!

[hearts401]

is it too late for me to join the deltarune convo..

+kruselle (kris/susie/noelle) is the superior ship /lh susie has TWO HANDS.

+i got indoctrinated into liking krerdly bc its really funny (the gaymers) and also so many ppl dislike it that im not convinced kris wouldnt date berdly out of spite for the player

+ralsei knows the player is there and specifically gets us to Fuck Off so he can talk to them in both released chapters*. probably plutting against us which is fair. also hes literally our tutorial character and knows about the controls and menus (which we see susie confused by, in parentheticals so likely under her breath/whispered/thought?). i think a lot of people use this to say ralsei is keeping secrets and follow that line of logic to say hes evil but i think he thinks its common knowledge.

*kris refuses to let us watch noelle and susie in ch2 in snowgrave im p sure

+CATTI GANG UNITE CATTI IS MY FAVORITE SIDE CHARACTER

-cross

REAL I LOVE THEMMM AUGH

It is hilarious honestly. I fucking hate that bird but i love him. hes like a little bug to me. freak!!!!

i didnt know that wow. I need to play deltarune again hmmm... I don't think he's evil but if he was plotting against the player then im super interested waow

CATTIIIII I WANT HER TO SHOW UP MORE PLSPLSPLSPSLPSDLP KITTYYYYY

[gisellelx]

Twilight Advent, Day 4

Masterpost/prompts

Dec. 4 - Pick a Twilight couple (canon or AU) and tell us/draw their favorite way to snuggle.

Well, that intriguing parenthetical opened up a rat's nest of intertwining (and kinda nsfw? and also slashy--you've been warned) headcanons, here, so, sorry, please buckle up. I've been meaning to write about the role headcanons can play in fic writing for awhile, and at some point an even longer writing meta is due, but today I'll get straight to the point even though this will in no way be brief--I enjoy writing fic precisely because it lets me think about characterization in a deep and complicated way. I'm always writing fic to get at the characters first and the situation second. It's even embedded in the title of my tumblr.

When I write an AU, I don't consider myself to be writing a different version of the characters. I consider myself to be writing the same characters, with all the same personalities, motivations, concerns, and fatal flaws, just having gone through or going through different circumstances. Kairos Carlisle is "Sensitivity" Carlisle is Patroclus Carlisle is Ithaca Carlisle; same guy, different situations. It’s why all my AUs have a clear point at which they’ve diverged from canon—I’m experimenting with the character by changing their world and letting their world change them.

So the underlying headcanon. Carlisle is badly, badly touch-starved. His nurse cuddled him and snuggled him—and he was with her for a long time—but he eventually left nurse and went back to London and to his father, who was much more concerned that Carlisle be saved than that he feel loved. They had little to no physical contact. Just at the very moment when he might have married, become sexually active, and had children of his own to cuddle, he gets stripped of his human life and for his own safety, has to separate from humankind altogether for many years. Then, he finally finds friendship and companionship, but in a man whose touch violates every snippet of his privacy. And still he stays, far longer than he ought, before setting out again for another century and a half, until he brings home a seventeen-year-old boy and spends three entire days just holding him.

Carlisle craves physical contact with those he loves.

Edward does not care for this. He's turned at the very moment in his development in which he is perfectly primed to be absolutely mortified by parental physical contact (and there's no small amount of gay panic on both their parts about it anyway). So it's still mostly just the occasional shoulder pat; the joy and surprise when Edward hugs him on occasion.

It's not until Esme arrives, and after they navigate their collective fears and traumas, that he manages to actually be touched. To have someone who hugs him, and strokes his back, and runs her fingers through his hair, who kisses not just his lips but his head, his shoulders, his chest. Sexual intimacy is his first real physical intimacy of his very long life.

So. For this prompt, a canon snuggle, and an AU snuggle for this guy for whom touching those he loves is his source of highest joy:

He could lie naked with Esme forever. And he tries to, a lot. Although they know their children are a little squicked out by the idea of hearing or sensing them having intercourse, and of course that's one reason they go to great lengths (islands!) to be separate from them, a big part of the reason they often totally relocate in order to have sex is that Carlisle really wants to just lie there, with both their clothes off, for as long as he can possibly get away with it; days if they can manage it. So they leave so that nobody has to worry about having to scramble back into pants or a dress at an inopportune time, so that he can just place his head on Esme's breasts and they can interlock legs and he can just get lost in not being entirely certain where his skin stops and hers begins. In Kairos, he finally gets to have the physical intimacy with Edward he's always longed for. This AU takes place in a world in which he had a sexual partner for eighty-five years and so his intimacy with Edward takes a different form, not to mention that Edward is still quite bashful about it all. Their favorite snuggle is to sit on the floor, with Carlisle's back against the couch and Edward using him as a recliner as he sits between Carlisle's legs. Clothes, no clothes; doesn't matter as much to these two. From there, Carlisle can run his hands through Edward's hair, kiss the nape of his neck or behind his hear, and bury his nose next to Edward's scalp to inhale his scent. They're not altogether very different things than what he would prefer to do in a fatherly way in canon; the difference is that in the AU world, the chips have fallen such that this time, Edward is willing to let him.

[facewithoutheart]

I posted 3,670 times in 2022

That's 2,343 more posts than 2021!

481 posts created (13%)

3,189 posts reblogged (87%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@martsonmars

@facewithoutheart

@cutestkilla

@urban-sith

@johnwgrey

I tagged 2,935 of my posts in 2022

Only 20% of my posts had no tags

#snowbaz - 274 posts

#fanfic - 225 posts

#fic rec - 152 posts

#ask game - 108 posts

#behind the writing - 69 posts

#the simon snow trilogy - 56 posts

#this will all go down in flames - 41 posts

#drabble - 38 posts

#six sentence sunday - 38 posts

#🥺🥺🥺 - 37 posts

Longest Tag: 140 characters

#naw i’ll yes and this and build you a little cottage in my mind space where you can drink tea write and read with a perpetual rainstorm outs

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

For @martsonmars 🍕❤️

Happy CO-versary from your moms, @sillyunicorn and @facewithoutheart!

And, ok, we’re a little late lmao but hopefully you’ll forgive us.

To celebrate you reading this book, joining the fandom, and just generally being an amazing human being, Kati & I commissioned this art from @stardustasincocaine of your fic, “end of autumn.”

I’m gonna explain why we picked this fic and then gush about it under the break:

Now, there were a lot of fics we could have picked to commemorate this occasion, but I liked this one because a) SPACE b) ARSONIST HUSBANDS and c) WINGS AND TAIL.

But also because I think it highlights so many of your strengths as a writer: your creativity for one (the way you flipped the prompt!!! Inspired), and your always amazing parenthetical asides:

His arms are crossed over his chest, and the nylon fabric of his protective suit stretches over his muscles in a way that should be illegal. (He should propose it to Doctor Bunce, she’d make it illegal. She likes to create useless laws just for the sake of breaking them.)

And your lyrical writing:

Baz takes a minute to admire his husband’s figure above him. He’s beautiful like this, flying around the top floor like an avenging angel, fire leaving his mouth in long blazes of light that ignite everything in their path and everything inside Baz’s veins.

Then Baz steps forward and raises his hands, calling his magic to the surface. He closes his eyes for a moment, imagining it – a match inside his heart, just waiting for his words. He blows on the tinder, and flames snake around his fingers like vines on a ruined wall.

And the silly, easy love Simon and Baz share.

Plus one of your first short fics!!!

I hope you enjoy this art & know how very much you are loved ❤️

84 notes - Posted February 4, 2022

#4

What CO fans WANT the Mage to look like:

What the Mage ACTUALLY looks like:

122 notes - Posted March 8, 2022

#3

This Will All Go Down In Flames

A @carry-on-big-bang collaboration with art by @tea-brigade.

Excerpt:

Under a moonlit sky, I chase Baz toward the Great Lawn with a screaming goat tucked under one arm. “Calm down, Little Sebastian,” I soothe while attempting a slow jog.

“Stop calling him that,” Baz hisses over his shoulder, his long legs carrying him at a faster pace than I can hope to match.

See the full post

125 notes - Posted July 3, 2022

#2

A pre-Wayward Son drabble about the small way Baz holds on to hope.

He Doesn’t Know

Simon Snow won’t leave home without my handkerchief in his pocket.

He doesn’t know that I know.

He doesn’t know I wash it when he’s sleeping, that I cast Good as new when the fabric starts to thin.

He doesn’t know that I see him, sometimes, when he’s anxious or sad, reach a hand into his left pocket, the one where he keeps it tightly tucked. That he strokes the fabric and the furrows in his forehead ease.

He doesn’t know I have a whole box of them, spelled hidden. Just in case he loses the original.

He hasn’t yet.

Even this tiny keepsake, this small symbol of when he first knew he cared for me, he treats as if precious.

He doesn’t know how it helps me hold on.

126 notes - Posted July 15, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

Hey besties new conspiracy theory about @rainbowrowell’s book announcement just dropped

440 notes - Posted March 15, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[dankusner]

Judges speaking softly

What They Long for When They Read

Do you ever stay up nights wondering what judges want?

At least in briefs and motions?

I recently surveyed more than a thousand state and federal judges, both trial and appellate.

Respondents ranged from state trial-court judges to U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The good news:

Judges agree on much more than many litigators might think, and I found no major differences based on region or type of court.

More good news:

When judges are surveyed anonymously, they’re blunt and sometimes even funny.

The bad news:

Other than the briefs by the brightest lights of the appellate bar, almost every filing I see violates the wish lists of the judges I surveyed.

Here is some guidance, along with some choice anonymous quotations about what judges want but too often don’t get.

For starters, watch how you name names.

Use the parties’ names rather than their procedural affiliation.

Prefer words to unfamiliar acronyms, even if the word or phrase is longer.

Avoid defining obvious terms like “FBI” and “Ford Motor Company.”

And for the terms you do define, put the defined term in quotation marks and then get out of Dodge.

All four of these techniques make “legal writing” feel more like “writing.”

“I absolutely detest party labels (plaintiff, debtor, creditor, etc.). Name names, for God’s sake!”

“Don’t use ‘plaintiff,’ ‘defendant,’ ‘appellant,’ or ‘appellee’ in the brief because we may forget who’s who.

Instead, use names for individuals and business titles for companies.”

“Avoid defining obvious terms.

If a party is Apple Computer Corp., why include the parenthetical (‘Apple’)?

If the plaintiff’s name is Henry Jackson and he’s the only Jackson in the case, why the need to identify him as Henry Jackson (‘Jackson’)?

If the case is about one and only one contract, when first identifying it, why the need for (the ‘Contract’)?”

“I truly dislike acronyms. I would much rather have ‘North River Insurance Cooperative’ referred to as ‘the insurer’ or ‘the cooperative’ or ‘North River’ than as ‘NRIC.’”

“‘Hereinafter defined as’ (or anything like it) is pretty awful.”

“Avoid defined terms (“terms”) altogether.”

Keep your language choices classy.

As if on cue, almost all litigators and appellate lawyers are happy to endorse a ban on emotional or hyperbolic rhetoric.

The problem is that those same lawyers often grant themselves an exemption, as if their opponents are so singularly awful or imbecilic that even the snarkiest tone is warranted.

In fact, lawyers often tell me that they absolutely must point out how disingenuous their opponent is, because otherwise the court won’t see it.

Solution: Show, don’t tell.

“‘Disingenuous’ is a perfectly fine word that the legal profession has turned into the wild card disparagement of the other side’s argument.”

“Don’t use ‘specious.’”

“Avoid phrases and sentences that reflect a lack of civility. Don’t belittle the other side’s arguments but rather focus on your own strengths.”

“I hate ‘speciously,’ ‘frivolously,’ ‘disingenuously,’ and other shots at counsel or the other party.”

“Don’t write ‘ridiculous.’”

“I hate ‘laughable.’”

“Words such as ‘clearly,’ ‘plainly,’ ‘obviously,’ ‘absurd,’ ‘ridiculous,’ ‘ludicrous,’ ‘baseless,’ and ‘blatant’ are crutches intended to prop up arguments that lack logical force. They can never make a weak argument credible or a strong argument even stronger. So why bother with them?”

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said that you should strike at the jugular and let the rest go.

If you write motions and briefs for a living, you can manifest Holmes’s maxim many times a day.

Start by cutting stuffy introductory formulas beset with such archaic language as “by and through undersigned counsel.”

Reduce well-trodden standards and tests to their essence.

Hack away at needless procedural detail.

And then, at the sentence level, slash windups and throat-clearing.

“Avoid long introductions such as ‘Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits its Reply Memorandum in response to _.

This Reply is accompanied by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.’

I know that counsel is filing the brief on behalf of his or her client.

I can see in the caption that the filing is a reply, and I can also see that there is a memorandum of points and authorities.”

“Avoid grammatical expletives (‘there is,’ ‘it is’).”

“‘It should be noted that,’ ‘it is beyond doubt that,’ and the like waste space.”

“Writing numbers out twice seems particularly useless.”

“Is it really necessary to devote a page or more or even half a page to discussing the standard of review for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?”

“The procedural history does not need to go back to the Creation. Just summarize what is relevant to the issue specifically before the court.”

“Most sentences are dramatically improved by omitting testimony references: ‘Smith [testified that he] went to the scene the following day.’

While some discussion of trial testimony is necessary when you are talking about hearsay or impeachment, those discussions are best left to highlight after you’ve told the story the reader needs to understand.”

“There’s a real danger in stuffing factual sections with crud.”

With judges becoming ever more impatient readers, looks do matter.

Out: long, uninterrupted blocks of text.

In: timelines, maps, graphs, diagrams, tables, headings and subheadings, and generous margins.

“Sometimes a timeline is clearer than an essay format.”

“I ALWAYS appreciate a clear timeline of events and I am happy to have that in the text of the fact section or as an exhibit. I want one place where I can see when everything happened in the case if it’s not a singular event.”

“Just as I don’t like scrolling down to find authority in a foot-note, I don’t like flipping through clerks’ papers or exhibits to find a key piece of documentary evidence that is discussed in a brief. The use of pictures, maps, and diagrams not only breaks up what can be dry legal analysis; it also helps us better understand the case as it was presented to the trier of fact (who undoubtedly was permitted to see an exhibit while it was discussed).”

“When a case involves analysis of a map, graph, or picture, I would like to see attorneys include a copy of the picture within the analysis section of the brief.”

“I like fact sections broken down with headings and even subheadings.

Define chapters in the facts or the ‘next’ relevant event.”

I was surprised that the judges I surveyed were more open to bolding and italics than judges used to be.

Perhaps this evolution stems from their desire not to wade through paragraphs that look and feel the same. Or

maybe the internet has accustomed all of us to formatting bells and whistles.

That said, even judges who don’t mind emphasis want it in small doses.

And although the judiciary may be split on emphasis, every judge in the country appears to hate all caps, and few are fans of underlining.

“Party names should not be in all caps.”

“Headings in all caps are difficult to read.”

“All caps are completely beyond the pale.”

“If a lawyer feels that emphasis is needed, I always prefer italics to boldface type. Boldface signals to me ‘Just in case you’re too stupid to recognize what’s important.’”

Let’s move on to specific language choices.

One question on my survey simply asked judges to list words and phrases they dislike.

Few responses surprised me, but it was amusing to see how easily many judges could rattle off language choices that drive them crazy.

They must have lots of exposure!

As the list below suggests, many lawyers are unaware of how often they use these words and phrases.

Never confuse knowing that you should avoid a term with actually implementing that knowledge in your writing.

“Death to modifiers!”

“I don’t like any clunky legalese like ‘For the foregoing reasons,’ ‘heretofore,’ etc.”

“‘Wherein,’ ‘heretofore,’ ‘aforesaid,’ ‘to wit’: they all should go the way of the dodo bird.”

“Don’t use ‘at that time’ for ‘when.’”

“Don’t use anything like ‘s/he.’”

“I dislike formalistic terms that people don’t really use in ordinary life like ‘wherefore’ and ‘arguendo,’ unnecessary phrases like ‘[party] submits,’ and derogatory terms like ‘asinine’ used to describe the opposing party’s argument.”

“Don’t use ‘prior to’ for ‘before’ or ‘subsequent to’ for ‘after.’”

“I dislike ‘notwithstanding,’ ‘heretofore.’”

“Don’t use words like ‘wherefore,’ ‘heretofore,’ ‘hereinafter’ that aren’t commonly used in everyday language.”

“Don’t write ‘Pursuant to.’”

“I believe ‘hereby,’ ‘hereinafter,’ ‘foregoing’ and other arcana have no place in modern legal writing.”

“I do not care for ‘the instant’ anything.”

“Tell them to stop writing ‘In the case at bar’!”

“I don’t like unnecessary Latin phrases like ‘inter alia.’”

“Get rid of the formalisms from the Middle Ages such as ‘Comes now Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned attorneys.’”

“‘Aforesaid,’ ‘heretofore,’ etc. are all pretty much empty and add nothing. Same with ‘said,’ as in the ‘said contract was signed at the said meeting.’”

“I loathe the word ‘utilize.’”

“I do not like when lawyers tell me what I ‘must’ do. Just say that the court ‘should’ do something.”

“‘Unfortunately for appellee’ (or for any party) should never appear in briefs.”

Another category of language irritation:

Many lawyers are surprised when I tell them that judges really don’t find “respectfully submits” and “respectfully requests” to be, well, respectful.

Cloying is more like it.

And my survey results were right in line with my anecdotal experience.

“Don’t write ‘Defendant respectfully requests.’ I prefer it if you just say what you want to say. I’ll know if it’s respectful or not!”

“‘Respectfully submits’ or ‘it is our position that’ are wasted words: they communicate nothing, except potential insecurity about the argument that follows.”

“Avoid ‘with all due respect.’”

“Avoid phrases such as ‘respectfully submits that’ that can be stated in one word like ‘contends.’”

On the less-is-more theme, you’ll rarely if ever hear judges complain that sentences or briefs are too short.

And yet, sometimes short is, in fact, too sweet.

Two offenders: random “this” and “that” references such as “this proves” or “that explains.”

Also, especially for traditionalist judges in the Justice Scalia mold, avoid contractions.

“I do not like indefinite references and see the word ‘this’ used too often. It should be used in conjunction with another word such as ‘this argument’ or ‘this logic.’”

“I REALLY dislike contractions. They make the argument sound like casual conversation and they give the writer an arch voice.”

When it comes to usage as opposed to word choice, American judges fall into three categories:

(1) those who understand the finer points of usage and care (these are the judges who ask me in workshops about “pleaded” versus “pled,” predicate nominatives,

and the counterfactual subjunctive);

(2) those who understand the finer points of usage but either don’t notice or don’t care, and

(3) those who don’t know enough about usage to notice mistakes.

“I despise the use of ‘impact’ as a verb.”

“Learn to differentiate between ‘that’ and ‘which.’”

“I cannot stand ‘As such’ used as a synonym for ‘Therefore.’”

“Learn to use the subjunctive!”

Now let’s talk about fact sections, and in particular dates.

Whenever I relay judges’ irritation with needless dates, someone in the audience retorts that some dates really matter.

Well, that’s why judges object to needless dates.

And it’s not as if you face a binary choice between a full date and nothing at all.

Sometimes a word or phrase will do the trick.

“It helps to vary how the passage of time is described. Instead of ‘on May 26, 2016,’ it’s refreshing to read ‘the next week’ or ‘two months later.’”

“Dates are rarely essential and often overused. If I see a date, I assume it is important. If it’s not, you have interrupted the flow of your argument for no good reason.”

“I HATE specific dates that have no relevance. I keep thinking the 24th day of September must really be important, for example, and then when it isn’t, I’m unhappy I’ve spent brainpower waiting for writer to tell me why it was critical!”

“Sometimes it’s enough to refer to an event as ‘mid-2015’ rather than a specific date.”

“If two parties entered into a contract, and it makes no difference to the claim whether they did so on January 22, 2014, or March 6, 2015, leave the date out.”

Now let’s talk a bit about the beginning of motions and briefs.

Don’t short the introduction.

Judges find strong introductions invaluable.

They help lawyers hone their theory of the cases, and they help shape the fact section and legal argument to come.

“Explain why you should win on the first page. ‘The Court should deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment for the following three reasons.’”

“I’ve had briefs in fairly involved cases without executive summaries. I’ve likened reading them to putting together a jigsaw puzzle without having the cover of the box to know what the puzzle is supposed to look like when it’s done.”

“I do appreciate a good ‘statement of the case’ section, particularly in complex civil appeals, in which, in a non-argumentative manner, the lawyer sets the stage for what issues the court is called upon to decide. That helps me focus on what facts and portions of the record will be most relevant to those issues.”

How about cases and other authorities?

Busy judges have become increasingly irritated with the way many litigators handle case law.

Facile shorthand: “Too many and too much.”

But it’s a bit more complicated than that.

One common complaint is that many litigators appear to search case law databases for choice language even if a given case doesn’t quite fit and even if the case doesn’t come down procedurally the way the lawyer wants the current case to.

“The main issue I run across is probably a function of Boolean searches: citations to ‘blurbs’ or quoted phrases within published decisions where the actual ruling, or the analysis, or the posture of the case is completely distinguishable (or even adverse) to the point the party is trying to make. I am much more persuaded by one or two authorities that are carefully analyzed and applied than by a sprinkling of quotations lifted from a dozen cases that are strung together.”

It’s also surprising how many cases some lawyers cite for a proposition that their opponents would never challenge, such as the summary judgment standard, the Daubert standard, or the standard of review.

“For well-established law, such as the standard of review, I prefer only a single cite.”

“Cite just enough cases and not all cases. One controlling case is enough. For non-controlling cases, if there aren’t any contrary or many contrary cases, cite two or three non-controlling cases, preferably the two or three most recent. If there are two contrary groups of cases and none is controlling, then it might be appropriate to cite one from each jurisdiction supporting the writer’s side.”

Once you know which cases to cite and how many, what should you do with them?

On the one hand, most judges rail against including too many facts and too many quotations when it would be more effective to use a concise parenthetical or a pithy quoted phrase merged into a sentence about your own case.

On the other hand, for complex or dispositive cases, some judges find that lawyers use a parenthetical when a fuller textual description would be more apt.

Ask yourself this question: “If I were being asked to endorse proposition X, what would I need to know about case Y to be comfortable doing so?”

And then don’t write one more word.

“Skip the long description. Just state the damn proposition, cite the damn case, and be done with it.”

“Long discussions of the facts of cited cases are often not helpful.”“For the most important case, cover the important points in text, not in an explanatory parenthetical. But it’s okay to use explanatory parentheticals for the cases that support the main one.”

“I prefer citation to one or two cases with a short, pertinent explanation in a parenthetical. I prefer a full paragraph for distinguishing an adverse authority. I don’t prefer distinguishing adverse authority in a footnote.”

“I prefer that briefs directly address contrary authority organized by argument, not by case name.”

That brings me to the block-quote question.

Most lawyers defend block quotes by insisting that they convey pivotal information that can’t be paraphrased.

That may be true, but here’s the bad news about that “pivotal information”:

If it’s presented in a block quote, judges are likely to skip it entirely.

So meet judges halfway:

Use block quotes only when the language of the text itself adds value.

Use block quotes as little as possible.

And introduce block quotes substantively and persuasively, focusing less on who said what and more on why the reader should care.

“Do not block quote more than three lines. After that, I may stop reading.”

“Don’t write ‘As follows:’ before quotes. Just use the colon; the ‘as follows’ is implied.”

“Fold quotes into text if possible.”

“Huge block quotes are terrible. It’s much more persuasive to paraphrase the reasoning and then quote only the crucial lan- guage.”

“When quoting, do not overuse brackets—I call them punctuational potholes. If you’re quoting from a case, start the quote after the part of the sentence that makes you want to use a bracket. The same for quotes from the record. For example, instead of ‘The officer stated, “[i]f [we] catch [you] in [the area] again, if [you] don’t have something, [I]’ll make sure [you] have something,” put ‘The officer said that if Smith were ever caught in the neighborhood again and did not “have something,” the officer would make sure he did have something.’”

One last issue.

Even after Justice Scalia’s passing, the debate over where to put citations rages on.

But with so many judges reading briefs on iPads or on other devices that require scrolling to see footnotes, 78 percent of the judges in my survey prefer to see citations in the text, the old-fashioned way.

You should still try to avoid putting citations at the beginning or in the middle of your sentences.

And, of course, some judges (12 percent in my survey, with the other 10 percent neutral) do love to see citations in footnotes, but those judges nearly always make their views known.

“This is a show-your-work gig, and I need to see your work there—not go hunting for it. This is a bigger deal now, I think, since we all read electronically.”

“We want to process the citation as we read. When a litigant makes a point, it matters if he or she is citing to a Supreme Court case, a circuit opinion, a treatise, etc. I don’t want to have to stop reading and look down and find the citation in the footnote or endnote. I understand the reasons some endorse it, but it is not practical for briefs and opinion writing, and everyone I work with hates that style of writing.”

“I find citations in footnotes to be distracting. It also makes the case more difficult to read online such as in Westlaw.”

Here’s the bottom line: Just as many associates in law firms think that knowing individual partner preferences is all there is to writing, many seasoned litigators think the same about knowing the preferences of individual judges.

Sure, there’s something satisfying about finding out whether a given judge likes the Oxford comma.

(Since I brought it up, 56 percent of the judges I surveyed said they do, 21 percent said they don’t, and 23 percent said they don’t care).

And it’s all too tempting to make brief writing mostly about rules and formatting preferences.

But I suggest that both litigators and appellate advocates spend most of their energies developing the core persuasive writing skills that would make almost all judges much happier.

So shoot for strong, compelling, yet concise introductions; a restrained use of case law, with quality over quantity; a readable treatment of party names and industry lingo; helpful leadins to block quotations; a confident and professional tone; modern diction; and more white space, headings, and visual aids.

In a word, show empathy for the reader.

And for those of you thinking that judges should practice in their opinions what they preach to lawyers about their briefs, that topic will have to be for another article!

Shoot for strong, compelling, yet concise introductions; a restrained use of case law; and modern diction.

[ajoytobeheld]

Los Campesinos! Record box project 2009: the winner!!

September 29th, 2009

So here it is…

For four long weeks we scoured the independent record shops of the United States of America for what we deemed the best 7″s they had to offer. We then, selflessly offered them up to you guys to win, in what was, with hindsight, a ridiculously dull final competition question. Please, I assure you, it was just as boring for me to have to go through the 127 (ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN. Seriously guys, we’ve not even sold that many ALBUMS) entries we received. And you lot didn’t even have the decency to present your answers in a HILARIOUS video.

The fruits on offer were as follows:

Xiu Xiu/High Places 7″ Split (includes David Horvitz polaroid)

Lovvers Laughing Man 7″

Casiotone For The Painfully Alone Town Topic EP

BARR The Song Is The Single 7″

Dan Deacon/Future Islands 7″ Split

Cheap Time Woodland Drive 7″

Telepathe/Effi Briest 7″ Split.

Tokyo Police Club Tessellate 7″ (featuring Tom Campesinos! remix)

Zola Jesus Poor Sons 7″

No Age Eraser 7″ (SIGNED!!)

HEALTH Die Slow 7″

Times New Viking Stay Awake 7″ EP

bis Sweet Shop Avengerz 7″

Abe Vigoda Animal Ghosts 7″

Deerhunter Nothing Ever Happened 7″

Big Black He’s A Whore/The Model 7″

Bikini Kill New Radio/Rebel Girl/Demi Rep 7″

Art Brut Alcoholics Unanimous 7″

Q And Not U Hot And Informed 7″

The Smiths William, It Was Really Nothing/Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want 7″

The Hot Puppies Somewhere 7″

The Housemartins Five Get Over Excited 7″

Fucked Up Year Of The Pig 7″

Les Savy Fav Plagues And Snakes 7″ (Wake Up A Snake/Raging In The Plague Age)

Electrelane In Berlin 7″

The Pains Of Being Pure At Heart Young Adult Friction 7″

Preston School Of Industry Falling Away 7″

Dead Science Tomlab Alphabet Singles Series 7″

The Mountain Goats Palmcoder Yajna 7″

Hearts Of Animals Hearts Of Animals 7″

Help She Can’t Swim Hospital Drama 7″

Vivian Girls Surf’s Up 7″

Gossip Gossip 7″

The xx Crystalised 7″

Low Santa’s Coming Over

The Locust/Melt Banana Split 7″

Mudhoney Touch Me I’m Sick 7″

Blonde Redhead Symphony of Treble 7″

Sounds Of The American Fast Food Restaurants – 10 Authentic Field Recordings 7″

Voxtrot Blood Red Blood 7″

Scout Niblett It’s Time My Beloved 7″

The New Trust Dark Is The Path Which Lies Before Us 7″ Album

Vivian Girls Wild Eyes 7″

Parenthetical Girls A Song For Ellie Greenwich 7″

Sleater-Kinney Get Up 7″

Dananananaykroyd Pink Sabbath 7″

Dananananaykroyd Black Wax 7″

Girls Lust For Life 7″

Miscellaneous Badges

A couple of ‘Zines

The box will also include the first signed 7″ of our There Are Listed Buildings single. Kind of puts the rest of that crap into perspective, doesn’t it?

Here is a photograph of Kim and myself holding the record box, just moments after thinking “this blog’s a bit text heavy, best get a picture in there”.

The suspense is killing you, I’m sure. This is just one of the many tricks of the trade I learnt from Kate Thornton, when we used to…well, enough about that. At the end of the day…there can be only one winner, and that winner is:

LOIS HADGRAFT.

What a lucky sod, hey?

Guys, thank you for all your entries and for following the competition. We’ll do something similar  but less tiresome, sometime soon. Part of the reason it’s taken so long to announce the winner is because it was breaking my heart that you couldn’t all have a Record Box. And the fact I didn’t want to have to give it up.

Keep it Real,

G-Money.