#so it's just me saying it on principle

[bixels]

tarpit site.

[cuddlytogas]

So I accidentally almost got into an argument on Twitter, and now I'm thinking about bad historical costuming tropes. Specifically, Action Hero Leather Pants.

See, I was light-heartedly pointing out the inaccuracies of the costumes in Black Sails, and someone came out of the woodwork to defend the show. The misunderstanding was that they thought I was dismissing the show just for its costumes, which I wasn't - I was simply pointing out that it can't entirely care about material history (meaning specifically physical objects/culture) if it treats its clothes like that.

But this person was slightly offended on behalf of their show - especially, quote, "And from a fan of OFMD, no less!" Which got me thinking - it's true! I can abide a lot more historical costuming inaccuracy from Our Flag than I can Black Sails or Vikings. And I don't think it's just because one has my blorbos in it. But really, when it comes down to it...

What is the difference between this and this?

Here's the thing. Leather pants in period dramas isn't new. You've got your Vikings, Tudors, Outlander, Pirates of the Caribbean, Once Upon a Time, Will, The Musketeers, even Shakespeare in Love - they love to shove people in leather and call it a day. But where does this come from?

Obviously we have the modern connotations. Modern leather clothes developed in a few subcultures: cowboys drew on Native American clothing. (Allegedly. This is a little beyond my purview, I haven't seen any solid evidence, and it sounds like the kind of fact that people repeat a lot but is based on an assumption. I wouldn't know, though.) Leather was used in some WWI and II uniforms.

But the big boom came in the mid-C20th in motorcycle, punk/goth, and gay subcultures, all intertwined with each other and the above. Motorcyclists wear leather as practical protective gear, and it gets picked up by rock and punk artists as a symbol of counterculture, and transferred to movie designs. It gets wrapped up in gay and kink communities, with even more countercultural and taboo meanings. By the late C20th, leather has entered mainstream fashion, but it still carries those references to goths, punks, BDSM, and motorbike gangs, to James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Mick Jagger. This is whence we get our Spikes and Dave Listers in 1980s/90s media, bad boys and working-class punks.

And some of the above "historical" design choices clearly build on these meanings. William Shakespeare is dressed in a black leather doublet to evoke the swaggering bad boy artist heartthrob, probably down on his luck. So is Kit Marlowe.

But the associations get a little fuzzier after that. Hook, with his eyeliner and jewellery, sure. King Henry, yeah, I see it. It's hideously ahistorical, but sure. But what about Jamie and Will and Ragnar, in their browns and shabby, battle-ready chic? Well, here we get the other strain of Bad Period Drama Leather.

See, designers like to point to history, but it's just not true. Leather armour, especially in the western/European world, is very, very rare, and not just because it decays faster than metal. (Yes, even in ancient Greece/Rome, despite many articles claiming that as the start of the leather armour trend!) It simply wasn't used a lot, because it's frankly useless at defending the body compared to metal. Leather was used as a backing for some splint armour pieces, and for belts, sheathes, and buckles, but it simply wasn't worn like the costumes above. It's heavy, uncomfortable, and hard to repair - it's simply not practical for a garment when you have perfectly comfortable, insulating, and widely available linen, wool, and cotton!

As far as I can see, the real influence on leather in period dramas is fantasy. Fantasy media has proliferated the idea of leather armour as the lightweight choice for rangers, elves, and rogues, a natural, quiet, flexible material, less flashy or restrictive than metal. And it is cheaper for a costume department to make, and easier for an actor to wear on set. It's in Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings, King Arthur, Runescape, and World of Warcraft.

And I think this is how we get to characters like Ragnar and Vane. This idea of leather as practical gear and light armour, it's fantasy, but it has this lineage, behind which sits cowboy chaps and bomber/flight jackets. It's usually brown compared to the punk bad boy's black, less shiny, and more often piecemeal or decorated. In fact, there's a great distinction between the two Period Leather Modes within the same piece of media: Robin Hood (2006)! Compare the brooding, fascist-coded villain Guy of Gisborne with the shabby, bow-wielding, forest-dwelling Robin:

So, back to the original question: What's the difference between Charles Vane in Black Sails, and Edward Teach in Our Flag Means Death?

Simply put, it's intention. There is nothing intentional about Vane's leather in Black Sails. It's not the only leather in the show, and it only says what all shabby period leather says, relying on the same tropes as fantasy armour: he's a bad boy and a fighter in workaday leather, poor, flexible, and practical. None of these connotations are based in reality or history, and they've been done countless times before. It's boring design, neither historically accurate nor particularly creative, but much the same as all the other shabby chic fighters on our screens. He has a broad lineage in Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean and such, but that's it.

In Our Flag, however, the lineage is much, much more intentional. Ed is a direct homage to Mad Max, the costuming in which is both practical (Max is an ex-cop and road warrior), and draws on punk and kink designs to evoke a counterculture gone mad to the point of social breakdown, exploiting the thrill of the taboo to frighten and titillate the audience.

In particular, Ed is styled after Max in the second movie, having lost his family, been badly injured, and watched the world turn into an apocalypse. He's a broken man, withdrawn, violent, and deliberately cutting himself off from others to avoid getting hurt again. The plot of Mad Max 2 is him learning to open up and help others, making himself vulnerable to more loss, but more human in the process.

This ties directly into the themes of Our Flag - it's a deliberate intertext. Ed's emotional journey is also one from isolation and pain to vulnerability, community, and love. Mad Max (intentionally and unintentionally) explores themes of masculinity, violence, and power, while Max has become simplified in the popular imagination as a stoic, badass action hero rather than the more complex character he is, struggling with loss and humanity. Similarly, Our Flag explores masculinity, both textually (Stede is trying to build a less abusive pirate culture) and metatextually (the show champions complex, banal, and tender masculinities, especially when we're used to only seeing pirates in either gritty action movies or childish comedies).

Our Flag also draws on the specific countercultures of motorcycles, rockers, and gay/BDSM culture in its design and themes. Naturally, in such a queer show, one can't help but make the connection between leather pirates and leather daddies, and the design certainly nods at this, with its vests and studs. I always think about this guy, with his flat cap so reminiscient of gay leather fashions.

More overtly, though, Blackbeard and his crew are styled as both violent gangsters and countercultural rockstars. They rove the seas like a bikie gang, free and violent, and are seen as icons, bad boys and celebrities. Other pirates revere Blackbeard and wish they could be on his crew, while civilians are awed by his reputation, desperate for juicy, gory details.

This isn't all of why I like the costuming in Our Flag Means Death (especially season 1). Stede's outfits are by no means accurate, but they're a lot more accurate than most pirate media, and they're bright and colourful, with accurate and delightful silks, lace, velvets, and brocades, and lovely, puffy skirts on his jackets. Many of the Revenge crew wear recognisable sailor's trousers, and practical but bright, varied gear that easily conveys personality and flair. There is a surprising dedication to little details, like changing Ed's trousers to fall-fronts for a historical feel, Izzy's puffy sleeves, the handmade fringe on Lucius's red jacket, or the increasing absurdity of navy uniform cuffs between Nigel and Chauncey.

A really big one is the fact that they don't shy away from historical footwear! In almost every example above, we see the period drama's obsession with putting men in skinny jeans and bucket-top boots, but not only does Stede wear his little red-heeled shoes with stockings, but most of his crew, and the ordinary people of Barbados, wear low boots or pumps, and even rough, masculine characters like Pete wear knee breeches and bright colours. It's inaccurate, but at least it's a new kind of inaccuracy, that builds much more on actual historical fashions, and eschews the shortcuts of other, grittier period dramas in favour of colour and personality.

But also. At least it fucking says something with its leather.

[oifaaa]

Trying to explain to my friend that I don't like Pinterest bc it's full of stolen art without giving away that it's also a personal hate since my own art has been put on Pinterest in the past without my permission and I hate that so much

[segretecose]

people who date taylor swift or others like her at this stage are so brave it's not even about the songs it's just the ticking clock before you get Commercialized that would make me run for the hills

[vampkomori]

Ena the Order is the concept of conforming to Fate, and Elio is an Emanator of Order

welcome to my pre-2,2 theory, i got carried away.

for those yet unaware, theres been a theory flying around that the Goddess of Sigonia, Gaiathra Triclops, is a folkloric interpretation of Ena the Order, on account of the iris of Ena's eye having the same colors as Aventurine's. we can go much further with this though.

(Aventurine's pupils are diamond-shaped, but little Kakavasha has round pupils. its likely that diamond-shaped pupils are a result of becoming a Stoneheart, because Topaz also has diamond-shaped pupils, and Aventurine used to not have them. but i digress)

Anyway, Gaiathra=Ena. Gaiathra is described as a left palm with 3 eyes, arguably Ena also has 3 eyes- two closed ones on their face, and one massive, open eye floating around them.

Gaiathra "reigns over all matters related to fertility, travels, and trickery." (Sigonia, Planar Ornament Relic Set) and is said to have been the one to bestow Aventurine with his luck.

but first: What is Order? Based on the words alone, youd think Order would have more in common with Equilibrium, but evidently that wasnt the case. Considering it was assimilated into the Harmony, it must have overlaps with that though, since the broader path is the one that absorbs the narrower one if their concepts are too similar. So, if Harmony is unity and peace, the idea of everyone joining a happy paradise, then how did the Harmony manage to absorb Order?

"I am filled with curiosity about how THEY swallowed up Order. The hymns of Xipe continue to spread and grow, occasionally overseen by ideology. In contrast, Ena's harmonic songs seems to align within a three-dimensional framework, akin to an emperor maintaining hierarchical order among all creatures. While there may be some overlap between THEIR Paths, the ancient Order is enormous in size, and swallowing THEM would prove far from effortless... Among the Aeons, there exist countless enigmas that surpass my own speculations." - Dev Log for Xipe in Simulated Universe, Herta's comment

Herta doesnt know either, and by all means a freshly ascended Aeon should not have an easy time absorbing someone as ancient as Ena- that is, unless Ena intended for it to happen.

This is a lot of establishing facts before i get to the meat of things. We still dont technically know what Order even is, so lets try figure it out!

"The planets governed by Ena adhere staunchly to established rules, yet I must acknowledge that the various calamities in the cosmos were all hindered by Ena's guardianship, leading to extremely efficient development of civilization among diverse planets. Interestingly, however, civilizations all eventually hit rock bottom because of Order. The ancient planets that once fervently worshiped Order would shine briefly before their total collapse... Perhaps this is the "Path" of these planets." - Dev Log for Ena in Simulated Universe, Herta's comment

So: Order is the concept of adhering to a predetermined outcome- their "path". Ena observes humanity "gazing into a crystal orb containing the cosmos" and ensures that they all follow their predetermined path of Fate. None may go astray, no outside influence may interfere, no matter what fate awaits them, they must follow their set path.

"THEIR voice is composed of syllables sequencing the rise and fall of civilizations in accordance with the Aeon's path."

Ena has the ability to foresee the future, as they dont just sequence the rise, but also the fall of civilizations. They are inherently impartial, just, things are destined to happen and so they see to it that they happen. Order is the concept of conforming to Fate, if a planet is destined to be destroyed by a calamity, then Ena guides it to that outcome.

However, Aeons, despite being concepts, arent just concepts, they have some semblance of sentience, self-awareness. they have goals, they make deals, though humans are unable to comprehend them.

So, Ena conforms to fate, but what is the purpose of doing so? Ena can see the future, but we know Kafka. there isnt just ONE future, theres a lot of futures, and endless paths. So its logical to assume that Ena, by being able to see the fates of civilizations, can actually see the endless amount of paths towards all possible fates, and personally chooses which path is specifically followed. and for the sake of the theory, lets assume Ena is benevolent and guides humanity towards the most fortunate fate (though even the most "fortunate" of fates can still end in destruction)

Before Ena was assimilated into the Harmony, they made a deal with Qlipoth the Preservation: Qlipoth will bring an end to Tayzzyronth the Propagation (as they are interfering with the predetermined Fates of planets) and in turn Ena will help Qlipoth against Oroboros the Voracity somehow (likely foreseeing its Fate and interfering with it). Qlipoth held up their end of the bargain, but Ena was assimilated before they were able uphold their part, which is interesting

We know theres something fishy about the Orders assmiliation into Harmony- it doesnt make sense, especially knowing that Ena foresees the future, and is likely aware of their own fate.

Heres where we remember that Gaiathra is also a goddess of trickery. Theres two possibilities:

Ena foresaw their own "demise" and made a deal with Qlipoth knowing they wouldnt be able to follow through on their part of the promise

Ena, able to see multiple paths for the future, foresaw that being assimilated into Xipe would lead them towards the most fortunate one, so they let themselves be absorbed on purpose, as the Harmony would not have been able to absorb the Order otherwise. The deal was just a bonus.

Either way, Ena would have known of the future, and making a deal shortly before the assimiliation of their path is clearly a scheme- they get something great out of it, and dont have to follow up on it.

Heres where we bring up Elio (and the Stellaron Hunters). We actually still dont know what path they follow, and isnt that so interesting? What path could possibly include following a "script" to ensure a certain future? hmmm

sounds like Order to me!

Elio possesses the ability to foresee future possibilities and the paths that lead towards them. Essentially, the exact ability that Ena is shown to possess. All the futures look pretty bleak though, except for one, which hes trying to achieve by making sure to follow that exact path: his "script". the very definition of Order.

Note also that despite Enas assimiliation, their faction can still exist. After all, Idrila the Beauty is also gone, but the Knights of Beauty still roam around. The path of a deceased or assimiliated Aeon can still be upheld even if the Aeon no longer exists.

Anyway, Elio is basically upholding Ena's legacy by ensuring that we adhere to fate, and guides us towards the most fortunate one. His ability is far too powerful though, so its safe to assume hes an Emanator, since theyre considered to be "as good as emissaries of the Aeons' wills"

*As a bonus, Gaiathra also reigns over "all matters related to 'travels'". if you stretch the definition a little, "travels" could refer to the idea of embarking on paths towards fate. you "travel" on a path, after all.

Theres also this interesting little tidbit here:

"THEY are always so symmetrical and so equal. If we were to rank those most sublime beings, only the Voracity and the Permanence can stand toe-to-toe with the Equilibrium's antiquity... Oh, and also the Order. After Ena disappeared, the Equilibrium's duties have only grown greater. Then, how would HooH perceive Nanook?"- Dev Log for HooH in Simulated Universe, Herta's comment

The fact that Nanook is brought up is pretty funny as theyre the youngest Aeon, and since only the most ancient ones would be able to stand "toe-to-toe" with HooH, youd think as the youngest, Nanook wouldnt stand a chance against them. but they were brought up regardless, in tandem with Ena no less

Coincidentally, Nanook is also the Aeon that Elio wants the Trailblazer to defeat too. Curious! You could say that it is the Will of the Order to see the fall of the Destruction? anyway,

HooH's duties "have grown only greater" since Ena disappeared, meaning that they must have overlapped in some way before, but coexisted. (similarly to how the Remembrance and Preservation coexist, possibly) We dont know much of anything about Equilibrium yet though, so lets put that aside.

Lets talk about luck.

Luck is just chance. The results of "chance" are left up to "fate". We know that not all choices or events matter in the grand scheme of things. Theres endless possible paths, so rolling a 1 or a 6 doesnt matter because it will still lead you onto the same destiny. Luck is irrelevant to fate, it does not influence it. Luck only influences how you arrive at it.

So how do you reconcile that with Order? if Order is staunchly adhering to fate, observing humanity to ensure they all end up on the "right" path, then how does chance, luck, happenstance, fit into all this?

Luck is the ultimate Order, because there is only ONE path that luck can take: the most fortunate one. It does not influence your fate however, luck only influences which one of the countless paths towards your fate you end up on. and always being lucky narrows your potential paths down to just one.

This is also why Nihility was the natural conclusion for Aventurine. If you realize that no matter what you do, you cannot change the outcome of your choices, then you realize its futile and decide to succumb to it. youll always win, so whats the point? Thats Nihility: succumbing to Fate, the inevitability of everything, realizing your choices dont matter. When youre lucky and everything you do leads to the same result then you start to think that maybe nothing matters.

Back on track though. Fate, despite being predetermined, is not singular. as in, theres predetermined fates (plural) waiting for you at the end of your path. theres multiple endings. Luck means you have less paths to end up on but luck does not influence the end goal.

In a way, what Elio is trying to do is very similar to what Aventurines "luck" does: he wants to end up on a very specific path that leads him to a very specific fate, and luck leads you onto one single path, theoretically making it easier to achieve certain fates. Its an interesting parallel.

"Blessing" someone with luck seems a bit too hands-on for someone like Ena, so while we might never know why Aventurine was blessed specifically, we can kind of see it as a sort of trial-run. Ena does not interfere, does not "defy" fate, but bestowing luck onto someone to narrow down their futures is a bit like interference- except its not, only on a technicality. theyre still adhering to the set paths that exist, after all, im not changing fate, what are you talking about? look, hes still on one of your predetermined paths. the fact that he cant go onto other paths is irrelevant if he still ends up at one of the predetermined endings.

As a note though, Ena is not Fate itself. Ena adheres to fate and ensures that humanity follows it. Nihility is basically succumbing to fate and thinking its inevitable and change is futile, and I guess you could see Harmony as the concept of circumventing fate- instead of arriving at one of your predetermined endings, how about you get assimilated into our harmonious hivemind and experience eternal bliss? (lets wait on that 2.2 harmony lore-drop before saying anything about that though)

got off track a little. basically, Ena's Order is the concept of conforming/adhering to Fate. potentially, in their era, Fate was a singular end, because they were the one to guide humanity onto certain paths and towards certain ends (which is why civilizations thrived but ultimately still collapsed). Enas assimiliation was on purpose, although we can only speculate on the reason. so i will. heres my speculation:

Ena is not Fate itself, but a Guide. seeing the countless possible paths and possible fates for humanity, they foresaw the same thing that Elio foresees- a terrible End at the hands of the Destruction that may affect humans and Aeons alike. potentially, Enas Will mightve been to avoid that (but remaining within the confines of fate, not defying it) so they set in motion the steps needed to embark on said path, which necessitated their assimilation into Harmony. if Enas reign caused the Fates of humans to be "set in stone", then Enas disappearance could be seen as humans regaining the ability to choose their own paths, their own fate. Essentially, Enas disappearance wouldve been necessary in order to even create the possibility of an "alternate ending" and leaving the choice up to humanity.

anyway thats the conclusion thanks for coming, godspeed if you read the whole thing. im bad at keeping things short and concise. and i started rambling near the end

as a disclaimer: these are vague thoughts and i change my view on things often. if we get new info in the future that says this was all nonsense then thats that. im not trying to convince anyone. just offering a perspective for funsies

[b4kuch1n]

one string is all that I need

[justanotherfanfolks]

Book 3 is literally everyone playing 4D chess! Jack can't escape the power of friendship, it's coming for him.

[starlene]

Every time someone comments the state of musical theatre in their country by saying musicals here should be presented in English because the translations are awful, a muse loses its lyre.

I mean, sure, if you think musicals should always be sung in their original language to preserve the exact vocal flow the original artists intended or whatever other purist connoisseur reason, fine. You're entitled to that opinion.

But other than that, the correct statement is this: musicals here should be translated better because the current translations are awful.

Just saying.

[suddencolds]

.~

[leonardcohenofficial]

fuck ph*l sp*ctor's wall of sound all my homies hate ph*l sp*ctor's wall of sound (except you the walker brothers you can stay since your producer was not ph*l sp*ctor but johnny franz ripping off the sound and doing it better)

[myfairkatiecat]

Guys I don't understand what I did.

[fisherrprince]

oh so alisaie’s exaggerated bully behavior is 80% fanon. saying this she casually picks up a large rock

[yugiohz]

i cant say that on twitter but i know u guys (elite circle) will understand

[thelesbianthespianposts]

Back to the Future the Musical should have been a 4 and a half hour rock opera with each hour and a half being one movie

[smile-files]

i think the main issue in arguing with zionists is that, well, they believe in zionism! if israel did deserve to exist, then the genocide and injustice in palestine could be argued for (not like it should be, but it certainly could) -- and zionists believe israel deserves to exist.

i, unfortunately, have a large amount of experience interacting (personally) with zionism and zionists. most of those i've talked to feel for the palestinians, and the violence they are facing, but they fail to realize (or they staunchly deny) the very, very active part israel and the IDF have had in that -- and how it's representative of what the nation has always done.

at the same time, they focus more on israeli hostages than palestinian ones -- and i know, of course, that these zionist jews i've interacted with are either israeli or have loved ones in israel, and so have a very personal stake in the safety of israeli hostages (which may very well be friends or family members), but i find it strange how much emphasis they put on hamas' cruelty in taking hostages while the IDF is doing the same thing (in essence; the exact details of who's doing it worse are important to note, but not relevant right now, because folks should realize that their side is being at least as cruel as the enemy's).

recently i was drawn into an argument with an israeli zionist (who, unfortunately, is very close to the action and tragedy by being israeli), and she was incredibly offended by my anti-zionism and my opposition to israel's abject cruelty to palestinian citizens, as it seemed (to her) like i was bypassing the cruelty hamas has enacted on israeli citizens -- which is very telling. i've noticed that we as jews have the tendency, whatever the situation may be, of focusing more on our pain than the pain of others, even if we are the ones hurting them. that person has every reason to be scared and hurt, and i'd be lying if i said her response wasn't at least somewhat sympathetic, but her pain in this horrible, violent conflict does not invalidate the pain on the other side. jews, throughout this recent crisis, have consistently not talked in depth about the constant losses in palestine -- am i suddenly being callous by focusing on those losses, and not our own? (YOUR PAIN AND THEIRS AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, YOU DOLT! sorry...)

because it all comes down to believing in israel! my mom has always told me about how beautiful it is there, about her time living on a kibbutz... and sure, it might be nice. i can't argue with that. but why is it that our nationalism for israel is so strong, so virulent? i have not seen patriots as loyal for any other country. and when you criticize israel, israelis feel like you're criticizing their entire existence -- and many non-israeli jews do, as well. because zionism has been built so deep into the modern religion! it's made to be a necessary piece! belief in it is the default!

and, from the inside looking in, i can't be surprised that many jews take anti-zionism as being antisemitic -- because, to them, israel and zionism stand as the pinnacle of safety and support for the jewish people. it is impossible to argue with them about anything above that base layer, as the base layer itself serves as a foundation: so long as a jew thinks that israel is right, deserved, and necessary, no proof will sway them into hating israel. it's just impossible, and that's very frustrating.

for me in particular, i find it very frustrating, as this single idea has turned so many people i know to support a genocidal entity. they believe in and support israel, so they stand with it now -- even if they condemn its current actions, they neglect how those actions are just an extension of its inherent existence -- whether they think israel's doing the right thing or wrong thing right now, they don't really care at the end of the day, because israel, to them, is necessary in keeping the jewish people alive. they stand with it, thinking that jews can only stand at all if they do.

but a genocidal crutch is no crutch at all: it only breaks us more. zionist jews make me so mad, and the worst part is that i could never express that to them in a way they'll understand.

[mhaynoot]

problems i think a lot of readers (especially young ones) have is taking things at face value, especially if a character is saying it or explaining it - like don't trust them fucks!! and don't trust the narrator either! treat every word like a mystery, a crime scene from the unreliable witness and you're the detective; discover the unwritten, find the innucuous lies and the partial truth, and analyse what isn't spoken.