#that seems like a very modern bias guess

[nimblermortal]

What is this word?

Ormar fleiri liggja und aski Yggdrasils en that of hyggi hverr ósvi∂ra apa.

apa: Not in my dictionary, I’ve checked under every vowel. It’s a genitive plural noun?

Is there an online dictionary I can check, or anybody got recommendations for a supplemental dictionary? I’ve been meaning to get one anyway.

[marzipanandminutiae]

Dear marzi, for reasons of trying not to give period characters too modern fetishes in my smut, may I have some recs as to where I may find some of that olde fetish content you've previously seen?

On the Wikipedia page for the "corset controversy," unfortunately!

Historians have been taking obvious tightlacing fetish letters seriously for...way too long. And sometimes still are. Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. Of course, there's no way to 100% tell which letters are fetish fuel and which are real, but generally any that use particularly heightened language or common erotic tropes- or that seem to fly in the face of evidence from extant garments, unedited videos, stock and advertisements from real corset companies, etc. -are to be viewed with suspicion.

(The same is true for letters used now to claim that nipple piercing was a real Victorian trend- for, indeed, the only source is anonymous magazine letters and many of them fall into the same obvious patterns as the tightlacing letters. One DOES describe the alleged process in detail...but it's basically the same as the process for ear-piercing, a service jewelers did commonly offer back then. Just applied to nipples. So whether it's real or not is still uncertain, but it's highly doubtful that large numbers of Victorian women were running around with nipple piercings given that no extant nipple rings have been found, such piercings are never mentioned in letters or diaries or other more concrete sources, etc.)

Besides that, I've seen glimpses of most modern fetishes in various sources:

the Psychopathia Sexualis, a medical manual of "sexual mental illness" (in heavy quotes because things like homosexuality and gender variance are mentioned under that heading), talks about everything from a fetish for tight boots and gloves on women, to bloodplay (initiated by a woman, actually, who wanted to drink her husband's blood), to force-femming, to some very elaborate femdom scenarios that I hope the sex workers in question were paid well for. Of course, since the cases are anonymous, these are also difficult to confirm- but clearly someone had THOUGHT of them, since they're written into the book.

And I've seen at least some of them in other sources, too, including some of the magazines that published the nipple piercing and tightlacing letters. The Englishwomen's Domestic Magazine was notorious for its letters on tightlacing, tight gloves, spanking, etc.

Photographic porn was definitely a thing almost as soon as photography came into being. A lot of it is pretty vanilla, but I could swear I'd seen piss kink photos (with urine painted in after development) before the blog where they were hosted went defunct

James Joyce's letters to his wife get into farting and scat fetish territory. Yes, really.

Speaking of letters, there was one man living here in Boston who, in the late 19th century, wrote letters to his wife describing erotic dreams of her as a giantess who pissed on him and then ate him. I cannot remember his name and it's going to drive me insane all day, but he was the head of Boston's censorship organization, the Watch and Ward society and these letters were first released by his own children for an unauthorized biography written five years after his death. Guess there was little love lost there.

BDSM is old. Like, really old. Old, to quote the sacred texts, as balls. I'm pretty sure there are sexual flagellation texts going back to the Renaissance, but don't quote me on that.

Basically, Rule 34 can be back-applied, too. If it existed, there was a fetish for it, probably. Of course, things that specifically involve modern technology or properties are out, but beyond that...the sky is the limit

[possiblylando]

HTP; Ghoul Lore Audio Log Spoilers/Analysis/Discussion

Dude holy shit uh Spoiler barrier and then all in cause

Okay Okay fuck where to begin this episode literally changes everything okay I guess lets start at the Draught. Based on what we know about this unique Draught, it means Grimal might not be the ghoul?? If the ghoul potentially has this Draught (which I vaguely doubt will come into play in this arc specifically) it could mean anyone could be the ghoul so long as they were only in a place without 1 other person. Atleast I assume so because if they could use this high power Dominate on multiple people simultaneously then this whole operation would be cooked from the start. While I was very mixed on the idea of Gloria as the Ghoul previously, I think its far more possible now. This high level Dominate (Lets assume 4 dots) This ghoul could have access to Rationalize or Forgetful Mind, Or any others in that category. If Grimal is was being commanded to act that could explain why everything is so suspicious around her. Have someone else go in and take care of Occam while the ghoul sits with someone else and has the perfect alibi. So now I think the possibilities for Ghoul are; 1. Grimal is the Ghoul (The Draught is a red herring and simply setting up something in a future arc instead of this current one.) 2. Gloria is the Ghoul & has this Draught; this is based more on Vibes and the fact Gloria doesn't actually do too much in part 1 outside checking Occam's pulse. If she's the ghoul and commanded someone (Namely Grimal) to attack Occam, she would have a vested interested in knowing if the attack was successful. Okay thats about it for my thoughts on the Ghoul right now. Onto the far more important bit of this episode. Because this was not simpyl a Ghoul Lore episode, THIS WAS A MARCKUS LORE EPISODE TROJAN HORSE.

But before the deep Marckus shit- Markus was 12 in 1988. Door was present and seems to be in his 20s or 30s. Boy has not been born yet and Boy is 11 in 2006 so he was born in like 1995. So I think its reasonable to place door as being in his 20s here, having Boy in his 30s. This means Door is probably 8-15? (Maybe) years older than Markus which would make him roughly 40 in modern day. D does look markedly younger in these photographs but I'm not sure if thats art style or actually because he's aged. It does put a damped on my thoughts about D being MUCH older than he seems. But we do know his previous Ex-Wife Rozalia (The Ghoul) is roughly 108 in modern day. It seems to be implied D had met & later married her after she was pretty deep into being a ghoul so there probably was a large age gap already. But it still kinda stands out to me. D is very afraid or Marckus becoming a Ghoul because he sees himself in him. I don't necessarily think D was a ghoul (thought it could explain his weird age). Thought all this might be confirmation Bias as in the more recent episodes D's hair has been more consistently colored with grey streaks when compared to earlier episodes where it was more like a sheen in his hair. It just feels like D has done too much to only be roughly in his 60-70s and very fit. While older people can certainly be in good physical condition it doesnt seem like D has suffered any real negatives from aging? He's MINIMUM 18 years older than Door who is in his 40s but again that's a low ball. I don't know. Alright time for the Marckus stuff. So its rather basic background knowledge that HTP's main cast is inspired by the cast of Warhammer 40k TTS. Now up until this point I had thought it was mostly a baseline thing. Only really carrying over personalities and vague relationships between characters while having the freedom to change them with that background knowledge. But based on this episode it appears to be more relevant.

Whatever the fuck Marckus managed to summon, It was something not even D understood. This is in directly parallel with 40k's Magnus who Marckus is based on. For those who don't know about 40k lore (I don't blame you its VERY long.), Magnus is a Primarch (Emperor's special kids) who ended up being manipulated by 40k's god of trickery and ended up fucking up literally everything because of his lack of thinking things through and the influence of said trickster god. Gods in 40k are manifestations of humanity (and alien's) collective subconscious minds and often take the forms of their most volatile negative aspects. They're entited formed from 'The Warp' which is the source of magic in 40k. Magnus is very naturally tuned to the warp. Almost all the issues in TTS (and 40k) relating to Magnus are because he has a MASSIVE complex. He craves parental affection and affirmation but in TTS every time he thinks hes denied it, some shit goes wrong. When he actually gets that parental affection (Earlier season 2 iirc) he mellows out alot until finding out the only reason the emperor (D's counterpart) brought him back was so that Magnus would act as a pawn and decoy in his 5d chess game to deal with political enemies. Magnus is not happy about this. With all this background information, whats present in this episode slots into place. Marckus seems to have forgotten about the incident yes. The better case is that he blocked out the memory due to trauma. But the worse possibility is that a seed was planted. One that's been festering within him since that time. D may be planning to tell Marckus everything in a few months, But I get the feeling before those months are up, That seed will sprout. In one form or another, Marckus will be given the option to go down the same path of darkness as his predecessor. I don't think Marckus would go for such a path without a push but the one providing that push might be D, even if unintentionally. D is so focused on the forest that he's missing the trees.

[irithnova]

I want to uh make a post about Mongolia's relationship with his history and I guess some fandom depictions I'm uncomfortable with.

I think nations who have imperialist histories have some complex feelings around them because their entire existence, despite their immortality or perhaps God like status, is at the mercy of their people and rulers. Nations are human inventions, the identity of the nation is what it's people makes it. They didn't exactly ask to be born or to be representatives of an entire group of people - they just are. Nations are also subjects to their "bosses", like whoever is the Leader, King, Queen, Emperor, President is at the time. The extent to which nations support said ruler and how much autonomy they had under them vary from ruler to ruler, century to century. It's not always wise to conflate a nation with it's politics however it can become incredibly disingenuous and runs the risk of imperialism apologia when it's ignored entirely.

It would be silly to say my analysis of Mongolia's particular relationship with his imperialist history fully covers every nook and cranny of emotions nations have about their own imperialist histories, however by explaining Mongolia's relationship with his it allows for me to explain a few different ways I think nations may look back on imperialist pasts and also allows me to air out some grievances about Mongol Empire depictions.

First of all - I think nations operate on a different moral compass. A lot of things they do seem extremely weird to most humans - like casual and open relationships. So nation morality would be different. For example, if a nation backstabbed (or even literally stabbed) another nation 400 years ago which in turn caused a lot of destruction, depending on what has happened in those 400 years, there may not even be a grudge there. They might even be friends. And that friendship could easily be broken depending on what happens in the next 400 years. A nation who was public enemy #1 1000 years ago may be well liked in the modern day.

Me saying that nations follow a different moral code does not mean that I am trying to justify wrong doing. However as literal... Gods perhaps, of course things will be different. I think all nations are in a morally grey area, as they are primarily driven by self interest. That ensures their survival after all. I believe all nations have done right and wrong, on global scales and interpersonal scales. No one is exempt from this.

My uncomfortable feelings stem from when exceptions are made for certain nations in order to downplay their assholery because of a bias - while other nations get the same old assholery treatment. I think you see where I'm getting at. I believe it is stepping into dangerous territory when one nations asshole status or imperialist past and even present/relationship with its government is magnified to such an extent that it becomes an offensive and stereotypical depiction.

If we talk about the treatment of China for example - magnifying the crimes of the CCP to the extent where your China depiction becomes nothing more than a Sinophobic caricature. A large part of Sinophobia is the assumption that a majority or even all Chinese people are part of a CCP hivemind - any warmth or humanity stripped from them as they are painted as cold, calculating and scheming orientals, every action having some sinister intent.

This over conflation of nations with their government is often reserved for China compared to the likes of the US or Russia. Again - it is foolish to not associate the nation with its government at all or only in very small parts and can lead into tricky territory. However over conflating a nation with its government and unsavoury actions committed on the nations behalf - especially when this is done selectively, quickly becomes offensive and in many cases even racist, and shows a persons prejudices against certain groups of people.

This is where Mongolia comes in.

This racialisation of the Mongols being uniquely evil in their imperialism isn't exactly a new invention so it's not a surprise that this depiction of Mongolia being a uniquely bad or evil nation personification compared to everyone else, even to other nations who have also engaged in imperialism/nation's who's engagement in imperialist ventures are far more recent or are still actually ongoing is a theme that's prevalent in the fandom.

You could take rochu fics for example where Mongolia is portrayed as the boogeyman they bond over their hatred for even 800 years after the fact (I won't even touch upon how incredibly historically inaccurate these fics are because we'll be here all day but just know - it's bad) and Mongolia has a terrible marauding personality still. However despite more recent and even currently ongoing Russian and Chinese imperialist ventures (even historical imperialism that goes way back with China before Mongolia even existed), including Russian and Chinese imperialism that has affected and still affects Mongols in the current day they aren't depicted so disgracefully.

In fact if anything, in the 21st century, Mongolia is at the mercy of both Russia and China, but people love to pretend that that is not the current reality because they need a token one dimensional "savage" nation to contrast against the more "virtuous" or "moral" nations.

The idea that the Mongols were somehow unique in their imperialism means that in turn, everything about Mongolia and it's culture and history is seen as inherently barbarous, almost as if they predispositioned to acting "backwards."

To say that Mongolia is 100% regretful of everything or 100% regrets nothing are both rooted in the racist notion that the Mongols were uniquely bad in what the Mongol Empire did.

I'm going to be talking about Western Exceptionalism here and how it relates to my point about "over conflating a nation with its government and unsavoury actions committed on the nations behalf - especially when this is done selectively, quickly becomes offensive and in many cases even racist, and shows a persons prejudices against certain groups of people."

You might have heard of the phrase "Conquerer (if you're) from the West, barbarian (if you're from the East)." It's basically a quote which summarises Western exceptionalism. In the West, the likes of Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Charlemagne are depicted as great conquerors and shrewd military commanders. They are almost universally viewed with this lense of admiration despite the fact that these men also had pretty hefty death tolls under their belts and established Empires.

Furthermore, people are willing to be more nuanced or clinical or objective if they do choose to speak on America or England's imperialist past in historical hetalia posts and circles. Not only that, but especially with the US, his "rise to power" is often lionised. America is not painted as some sort of bloodthirsty savage even if someone has a more critical take on him, and his technological developments are often highlighted. Meanwhile Mongolia has often been portrayed as a mindless brute, his people a faceless horde, and whatever advancements that the Mongol Empire accomplished are downplayed or downright ignored in order to fit the "Mongol barbarian" narrative.

As touched upon previously, the depiction of Mongolia that he regrets nothing often results in extremely racist depictions. Of course he has regrets - literally every nation does.

As a whole do I think Mongolia regrets the Mongol Empire? No. But there are certainly aspects of it that he finds regrettable.

I personally think a majority of nations who have had imperialist histories don't 100% regret it or at least aren't prostrating themselves begging for forgiveness over it - so no he's not unique in that aspect at all.

We need to remember that without Chinggis Khaan/the formation of the Mongol Empire, there would be no "Mongolia" as we know it or "Mongolians" as we know them. They essentially would have been another obscure group recorded a few times in Chinese chronicles and given little attention. He is essentially their founding father .

When I say that as a whole that Mongolia does not regret the Mongol Empire, that does not mean that I think that when he remembers those days, he gets a huge fucking boner thinking about how many people died under the Empire and that's the source of his happiness when he looks back. Mongolia's pride and fondness of his past is less to do with the death toll (despite what offensive fandom depictions and racists would lead you to believe) and more to do with what he was able to achieve at the time - this is not dissimilar to how other nations with Imperialist histories remember it.

For example, in England, Winston Churchill is almost venerated for his leadership during World War 2. A majority of British people don't celebrate Churchill because he was a raging racist who purposefully starved 3.8 million people in Bengal to death (that's not me justifying the insane Churchill worship that they participate in though), but celebrate him because of - again, his leadership during World War 2. Similarly, Mongolia/Mongolians don't celebrate Chinggis Khaan because they think his kill count was epic - but because it was Chinggis Khaan who solidified the Mongol identity and brought Mongolia onto the world stage after years of obscurity and the risk of simply being absorbed into neighbouring groups and forgotten. Just like how the US celebrates his founding fathers , Mongolia celebrates his own.

Mongolians are said to be a proud people - especially of their history. I mean they have a huge Chinggis Khaan statue for a reason. While I don't think Mongolia is always living in the past, he definitely remembers those times fondly. To regret it and prostate himself begging for forgiveness over it would essentially be him regretting the fact he's alive. What he was able to achieve was undeniably impressive - from a relatively obscure group of people surrounded by much more powerful and threatening neighbours and at risk of being absorbed to forming a strong, consolidated identity and creating the largest Empire to ever exist (before the rise of the British empire much later on. Sorry Mongolia you're number 2 how).

Does he think about the death toll? At times, yes. But like all nations with imperialist histories or even all nations who have been in conflicts - while he acknowledges it, there is little emotional investment in it. He doesn't look back at it in bloodthirsty pleasure but he also doesn't break down in hysterics. Perhaps it's turning a blind eye, sure. But again. Nations operate on a different moral code. And maybe it's even self preservation to an extent. If all nations dwelled on the numbers who died under them, they'd surely go mad.

I remember seeing a pretty funny comment on the r/Mongolia subreddit and it essentially went:

Did they deserve it? No

But are we proud of it? Yes

I think Mongolia agrees that yeah a lot of those people who died under his empire didn't exactly "deserve" it, but views it as a sort of necessary evil. And I think we need to remember that nations are not humans so nation morality is not going to be identical to human morality. This "necessary evil" mindset is a view that I think a majority of nations have when remembering a majority of the conflicts they participated in.

For example, with the destruction of the Khwarazmian Empire, sure, Mongolia isn't going to sit there and say "those kids deserved it", but he will say that it was something of a necessary evil, because Muhammad II (the ruler) decided to decapitate his envoys for no good reason despite agreeing to a peace treaty/trade agreement with the Mongols shortly before this. He'd give similar explanations for other scenarios. None of the explanations include "I did it because I just needed to kill 100,000 more people to reach my kill count goals."

This is not the only explanation he'll give. There are also instances where he will admit that yeah that was unprovoked or that was kind of shitty and I think that he owns it. Not own it as in "I'm proud of it I loved killing them" nor as in "wow I'm so irredeemable please forgive me", but he's pretty frank about it happening and won't deny it if someone asks. This is a pretty common mindset I've seen with Mongolians, they're not exactly in denial of what bad things took place during the Mongol Empire but it doesn't make them any less proud of what was accomplished.

And of course he does have regrets/ looks back and find things regrettable - as all nations do. I do think he is sore about certain things. An example of something that he thinks is regrettable was the burning of the House of Wisdom during the siege of Baghdad in 1258. There were perhaps certain cities that he would have actually liked to preserve but regrettably they weren't kept in tact. He thinks that perhaps the number of casualties could have been lower had X or Y not happened.

An example of something that I think he wholeheartedly regrets (while not to do with his empire but also in the past) was the Zhungar genocide. This regret over what happened with the Zhungars/Oirats (another Mongolic people) is a common sentiment amongst Mongolians and is quite a sore topic when discussed. This is despite the fact that Mongolia and the Oirat confederations were constantly at each others throats.

Mongolia is not unique in how he views his empire or imperialist ventures. It's pretty typical of how most nations with imperialist pasts handle it if you ask me. "I don't regret it entirely, however there are things about it I certainly find regrettable or unsavoury.", "It was something of a necessary evil, me and another kingdom were fighting over a piece of land so of course people were killed in the process", "I wholeheartedly regret this and wish it never happened."

The mindset and emotions depends on the conflicts, what happened, they circumstances surrounding them, the aftermath. Maybe nations are unjustified or even hypocritical in being upset about one conflicts destruction while pretty much turning a blind eye to another - I think a lot of them are somewhat aware of this themselves. However nothing about nations really makes sense. Perhaps nations need not question their actions.

What I'm saying this: No I don't think Mongolia is particularly unique in the way he views his imperialist history and I'm kind of tired of Mongolia being portrayed as uniquely evil because of his empire 800 years ago whereas nations such as the US and Germany are viewed much more favourably and conflated far less with government decisions and atrocities despite them being far more recent. It just shows me the way in which you view Mongolians, and it's not pretty.

Anyways other thoughts: No Mongolia isn't constantly thinking about his empire and I don't think he's emo about it. It is a source of pride and well there are lots of tributes to Chinggis Khaan around Mongolia of course hahah but like... He's definitely in the here and now and isn't "stuck in the past" malding and smoking 100 cigarettes a day about how powerful he used to be I mean look at how much Mongolia politically is getting involved in the international scene. I do think he does get fed up at his government but that's not the same as being depressed or hopeless over it - I think he rarely ever feels downright hopeless because if his broke ass could become an empire I guess anything could happen, but perhaps downtrodden at times. He doesn't see much sense in wallowing in pain. Not that he hasn't done that but from an objective sense he thinks it's dumb and useless so refrains from doing so as much as possible. Unless something happens to him that's so bad he's just thrust into that state of mind or something which has admittedly happened a few times but he tries to get back up quickly I feel. Anyways yeah Mongolia 👍

[teatimeatwinterpalace]

Like it or not, the one who saved and modernized the monarchy was King George V, not king Edward VII, and this is an undisputed fact that all historians would agree with. After all, It was during the reign of King George V that 13 European Monarchies crumbled to the ground while the british monarchy survived. And it survived because of George V, because of his leadership, his modern statesmanship, his will to embrace and encourage changes, his popularity and the respect that his nation had for him, while he led his country to victory during WW1. He was the FIRST Monarch that brought monarchy close to people, hence why he was nicknamed the People's Monarch or the Citizen Monarch. George reigned during the most difficult times in the history of monarchy and of mankind, but he managed to save his monarchy and to modernize it, setting the path for a Constitutional Modern Monarch*. Your bias cannot change it, because facts dont give a damn about your opinions. A pity that you cannot uplift Edward VII without bringing George down. George wasnt dull, he was quite the character. He was genuine, funny, reproachable, a lover of books and cinema, and most importantly he was a SERIOUS LEADER, who acted exactly as a modern head of state is suppsed to act. Oh and he was a FAITHFUL Husband, he was devoted to his wife and loyal to her throughout their entire marriage. Something that can never be said of Edward VII who was unfaithful and over-indulgent in everything ( Im sure his mistresses would have preferred Handsome George though). If being faithful and family-oriented makes a man dull, than give me dull everyday. Queen Alexandra would've been happy to have married a man like George who never embarrassed and humiliated his wife

Oh my, where does this come from? lmao. Tbh, I deserve this kind of message when it's about Wilhelm. I'm totally biased regarding this rascally young fop (Alexander III said it first!). Badmouthing him is one of my favourite pastime. But George, come on! I never been too harsh with him? EXCEPT, perhaps, when it comes down to the Romanovs, but what can I say? When you don't have a backbone, you really don't…

Yet, I'm a tad puzzled by your message because we are talking about George V right? The one who in April 1905 hadn't seen his children for three months. The one who used to shout at his second son "Get it out" when the poor soul was suffering from stammer. The one who in 1917, while on a stroll in the grounds of Sandringham complained to Nora Wigram that his children always avoided him. Nora retelling this story in one of her letters to her parents said how Mary, David and Bertie became "quite cheerful & entirely flippant, writing their names in the snow" when George and Mary had gone home on said stroll. However, do you know who was ACTUALLY a good father? his cousin *whispering* Nicky.

Faithful yes but let me remind you that their marriage was far from smooth sailing. They lived seperately for months on end. You also must have forgotten the countless letters from George trying to apologise for shutting down, being rude or cold towards May. + May's letters complaining on how he would shut her out. The man was unable to articulate his feelings which led to endless misunderstanding. May who once wrote to George while in Paris : "I quite understand about yr not wishing to come to Paris & am not angry, I only thought it wd be nice change as I find life in general very dull- unless one has a change sometimes." She had wanted him to join her but had received a rebuff instead. May who wrote to his brother in 1900 while she was stuck in the gloomy York Cottage: "It is so dull here & I feel very low & depressed tho' Im pretty well on the whole" (alright she was pregnant at that time, but guess where George was?… out shooting birds).

Led his country to victory during WW1? Hmmm, you really mean George V who was described in 1918 by the Viscount Esher in those terms: "he seems virtually a recluse, steadily devoting himself to good purposes and little works of a good kind, but with not conspicuousness, no assertiveness of the King's position." / "making himself a nonentity" ? While May wrote on 19 november 1916 to her son David about the hospital visits: "They are "assomant" (tiresome) & I dislike them more than words can describe!" and then proceeded to explain how much she enjoyed her shopping trips at Goode's.

I'm teasing because OF COURSE I think George V was a good ruler and perhaps he was the kind of ruler the country needed at that time. He was a great arbitrator and was able to adapt and change despite having conservative views and being very much uneducated. How he dealt with the Irish question is a stellar example! He was an ordinary man who disliked society and suffered from bouts of depression. There is a sentence that struck me in Ridley's book which in my opinion sums up George : "He was a man of disconnected feelings".

I could write PAGES about Bertie's shortcomings and how his shenanigans damaged the monarchy. Yet he was a gifted ruler, very much in tune with his time.

So I guess anon, it comes down to... preference. If you are more into shooting birds and collecting stamps, you do you! I, on the contrary, have a soft spot for cosmopolitan kings with a string of scandals.

Now if you'd excuse me, I'm off painting the town red with Bertie!

[heatwa-ves]

I am SO GLAD that you gave me the green light. Now, this isn't a myth, but more of a curiosity relating to how we know about these myths, and something interesting about Loki specifically. Now, context: we have a whopping total of two (2) major sources on norse myths, the poetic edda and prose edda. They were both written around the year 1200, which, you may guess, is pretty late. Scandinavia was fully Christiansted in 1000, so the people writing the myths down were very much Christian, and thus had a bias. This means absolutely everything of the very little we know needs to be taken with a MASSIVE grain of salt, because it's very visible that both have a heavy Christian influence. Problem is we will never be able to know for sure. However, if we look across most germanic countries, you'll notice a bunch of familiar figures and stories popping up, because all these mythologies are very similar. So if you go to Germany Odin becomes Wuotan, etc etc. This is true for the vast majority of gods, even more niche ones. However, here's where this gets interesting: none of these other versions have any equivalent to Loki. And that is STRANGE. because in the poetic and prose eddas, Loki is a very major figure, showing up in the vast majority of myths, even bringing on ragnarok. So, for him to not appear anywhere else, at ALL, is very strange. This makes it very likely that Loki was originally a more minor deity that was blown out of proportion because he fit a Christian narrative: he serves as a scapegoat for Asgard (which is NOT put in a good light in either edda), and brings about Ragnarok. The eddas imply REALLY hard that we live in a post-ragnarok world and Baldur is the Christian God with a big G who took over after everything died. Another thing which seems to show that Loki was not a major god is his complete lack of deific designation. Even though he is such a prominent figure, it's never stated what he's the god of. (He's only half god but then again so is Thor so we can look past that). A lot of modern adaptations make him a god of trickery or illusions, but that's never really said. He likes trickery and illusions, but it's more of a personality trait than anything else. I'm not the god of begging my friends to listen to me talk about books written in the 1200s.

Anyways, in conclusion, Loki is very interesting from a historical point of view, because we have no idea where he came from but we might know why he's here. And also the vikings should have really. Yknow. WRITTEN THIS STUFF DOWN. WE HAVE LIKE THREE REFERENCES TO LOKI BEFORE 1200. TWO ARE A STRETCH TO CALL LOKI AND ONE LOOKS LIKE THIS

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk <3

ooh this is really interesting!! thank u for telling me <33

[tianshiisdead]

How would you characterize modern day Japan’s relationship with China and Korea? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Ps. Love your art

hello anon i see you have it out for me <3

KFLDHGF JK JK... this is quite a question though 💦 Honestly fairly rocky I'd imagine, but they do hang out. I think there's a contrast between Korchu complaining about Japan and the three of them going to karaoke and drinking together. Inevitably they're going to have a decent level of closeness I feel given how intertwined East Asian modernity is, but that doesn't lessen the antagonism all that much. Korchu harass him on twitter*, and totally justifiably as well LOL Japan is NOT owning up to anything and this is all the reparations they're going to get in the foreseeable future...

On Japan's part, I don't think he's particularly apologetic so much as irritated by them bringing old scars up because 'it was in the past, why are you lingering on old history instead of looking into the future' with maybe an added 'this is why you haven't developed properly like I have' towards China - although he probably can't do that anymore I guess! Sad! I also do think he lowkey looks down on them, and that he has some weird complexes about them as well but that's another conversation. Japan has some sort of 'closer to the west' sense of pride that gets in the way of relations with his neighbors as well, he's really annoying about that, and he has (more than) a bit of nostalgia towards eras Korchu are Not Happy About. He also has a bad tendency of blaming them for his domestic problems which they also aren't very happy about.

This is where I'm going to reveal my bias: I'm definitely less knowledgeable and therefore less confident on Korea-Japan compared to China-Japan, but to focus on China-Japan for a second: I think Japan's actually fairly irritated at China. Like, in general Korchu anger towards Japan far outweigh Japan anger towards Korchu for obvious reasons, but in this case Japan has a thought process like 'I helped you so much in the 80s and now you're stabbing me in the back!!', which China thinks is bullshit of course 👍

Also, lest I make it seem too much like Korchu vs Japan, I'd imagine Korpan complain about China together quite often as well and Nichu commit racism towards Korea separately but they catch each other's gaze across the internet and have a moment of understanding. Japan and Korea play nice when America's looking but fight a lot when America's not looking. They're caught up on each other's latest media and resent that fact. Easia's such a funny region 😨

*China has a twitter through a vpn like all those Chinese gov officials/international correspondents who spend their time dropping twitter roasts all day

**korchupan are not related they're not even slightly related they're not brothers they aren't family no one 'raised' anyone and they view each other as Potential Sexual Partners ok thank u. i see most 'easia Blood Family' takes as being anywhere from a little ignorant to incredibly racist

Ah and thank you so much!! I am so glad u like my art means a lot <33

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

You know, if a bunch of very smart people are arguing with each other and it's impossible for the human brain to read all of them, perhaps the only way to sort this out is a good old-fashioned schism (or maybe even a split personality thing? I dunno).

Anyway, this guy is saying there are various, specific things that we can do to avoid the kind of cognitive bias and pattern-matching of social environments that he thinks is characteristic of modern Internet-based life and I am nodding solemnly and not writing a 1,000-word response explaining why I strongly disagree with him, you know, like I normally do on this blog whenever I see someone say something about human cognition that I find puzzling.

I am, in fact, very good at responding to people who disagree with me and writing 1,000-word responses explaining why I disagree with them. The people who think they can't do that don't always notice when they do it. The people who can't seem to do it do.

So I guess that's why I don't see any problem with the schism.

(I didn't actually look it up, but IIRC the guy is talking about the availability heuristic, so it's not exactly an argument from his field or anything.)

[roostertuftart]

Who is the most homophobic person in South Park, in your opinion? 👀

Oh god idk. There’s probs obvious answers I’m not thinking of right now… I guess as of modern seasons almost everyone in the show is at least publicly for basic rights like marriage, so we’d have to go off of more subtle things. This would include performative behaviour by say, the Tweaks, engagement with homophobic humour by people like Gerald Broflovski, or even internalized homophobia like we often see (though not so much anymore) in characters like Mr. Garrison.

Except for, now that I think about it, maybe Stephen and Linda? It’s unclear where they stand as of now. I think they’ve had moments of not being outright against Butters being gay (like betting on whether or not he will be) but also, idk, the internalized homophobia is especially real in Stephen and they just seem to be written very much like a Christian conservative family with very “traditional” ideals. So Idk, it’s hard to say but probably they are the most homophobic characters in the show right now (who appear very consistently anyway).

And like, among the kids, none of them are really homophobic. Maybe Butters, a little? From influence from his parents? He’s definitely dealing with toxic masculinity which often coincides heavily with homophobia, but idk, I kinda doubt he is. Plus I think it’s funnier, the idea that Butters is like “fuck dating a girl, what’s the most manly thing you can do? Kiss another man!!”

Either way, we don’t have a lot of reference to go off of with Butters besides him using some homophobic slurs that all of the other kids, ESPECIALLY Cartman who he tends to be very heavily influenced by, so I’m gonna say no, Butters is probably not a very homophobic person if at all.

The other kid who I’d place as probably the most homophobic of them all is the obvious choice: Eric Cartman. Dgmw, Eric has shown to be accepting of gay people and is even written to be very fruity himself, but I think it’s pretty obvious he still holds some bias’ in how he often goes out of his way to bring it up in reference to Tweek and Craig for example, and it makes a lot of sense for his character to hold a lot of internalized homophobia which I think is partly what Cupid Me is meant to be.

So yeah, idk. Out of the kids I think it’s Cartman.

[iputthediscoindiscourse]

So because men want to fuck you now and because they “buy you food and other trinkets” you became a tradfem? I guess your mom’s grooming did work after all! I’m sure you guys can bond over that.This whole thing is so embarrassing and not because you’re “bi now” but because you have two very contradicting ideas trying to make them into one, you also clearly enjoy being objectified by men which is why people are calling you pathetic. “I just want to be a stay at home wife” yeah which you’re probably gonna settle down for a moid because “it’s easier to get men” right? Even tho you know how disgusting men are you still choose to be with them how is that not the most heterosexual behaviour? You should have just kept on living your life and kept it quiet 😂

Just like I said before you are a wuss and a coward saying this as an anon and you need a shitton of help to actually be a fully functioning member of society!!

So because men want to fuck you now and because they “buy you food and other trinkets” you became a tradfem?

First off, I never said anything about men wanting to fuck me in that response? You are literally sexualizing me which is making yourself look bad bro. Why do you assume that men do stuff for me and I swing that way? Like if you really want to know what made me go that way was studying Sharia(Islamic Law) and Halakha (Jewish Law) both in academia and with friends, made me realize that the religious culture I grew up in was fucked and that had no protections for women, and that there was a possibility of actually being religious and still having a loving partner and family life. Along with that, when I went off to college it was the first time in my life I actually met men that actually loved their wives and their children, they are actually excellent fathers, husbands and community members and it made me realize how fucked I grew up was. Like growing up, all of the men didn't really love their wives or their children at all and they boggled everyone done instead of helping them!! Like actually seeing people in love and having happy lives with marriage and child rearing is what made me go that way!! Like knowing the I can actually have a happy fulfilling relationship along with creating a family full of love laughter and happiness made me go this way!! Also I only let one man buy me trinkets cause of my trauma the rest of my fwbs and dates just buy me food lmao.

I guess your mom’s grooming did work after all! I’m sure you guys can bond over that.

You know my mother would throw a riot if she knew my dating history and knew I covered my hair right? Like she wanted me to marry a white Christian man, and not just any white Christian man but one that was similar to her religiously. Which I have never dated a Christian guy, I mostly date either non-religious, Jewish or Muslim guys. On top of that, I have dated a lot of Indian dudes along with Black guys and Pakistani dudes. Once in a blue moon do I date a white man anymore tbh. Also haven't talked to my mother in over 18 months and I don't plan to anytime soon tbh.

This whole thing is so embarrassing and not because you’re “bi now” but because you have two very contradicting ideas trying to make them into one, you also clearly enjoy being objectified by men which is why people are calling you pathetic.

Tradfem and Radfem are not that polar opposite that you make it out to be both modern (last twenty years ish) have been trying to answer the same question which is how to improve the conditions for women and people of the female sex. For radfems, they want to destroy the current order of things and build it from the ground up. While tradfems want to keep some of the natural order of things but tweak it here and there to benefit women. Like no offense but your views on tradfems are very bias and seem somewhat corrupted by what men want you to define them as lmao. Where did I say I like being objectified by men? Cause like if a man only sees me as a sex toy I cut him off instantly so like lol. If I am pathetic then I wonder what you are for sending such weird messages to me.

“I just want to be a stay at home wife” yeah which you’re probably gonna settle down for a moid because “it’s easier to get men” right?

love the wording here it make me laugh a little lol. Honestly if I met a woman who was my type and we could be compatible I am not opposed to marrying her tbh. Like I don't settle with it comes to my partners, there is a reason none of my relationships hit the six month mark and that is because I realize I deserve better and leave. Like I am not going to settle, I am not going to make the mistakes of my mother tbh.

Even tho you know how disgusting men are you still choose to be with them how is that not the most heterosexual behaviour?

Men as a class as disgusting, but some individual men are good and honestly I wouldn't mind settling down with one if I find what I want. You know there is more heterosexual men than wlws right? so the probability of me marrying a man is higher than me marrying a women. So like, I am just being brutally honest by the fact I am more likely to marry a man than a woman.

Also nice to know you are british based on how you spell behavior.

You should have just kept on living your life and kept it quiet 😂

I mean what is the fun in being quiet, sometimes starting a riot is fun. Besides as I said numerous times, we need many different people in this world or else she is boring.

[dojae-huh]

not attaching the link but I saw a twt criticizing ty for outshining the mebers with choreo ....comon.. .it's ty..he was born to do that...sometimes I really dont get the fans...

anyway I want to ask about mark..did he ever outshined the members with the choreo?? I mean as an artist I respect and admire him...he works hard..his rap is powerful and also he dance well too...but I never get the feelings that he have an impactful aura in dancing..for me jae has it sometimes , when mark is better than him..u knw what I mean is right...even if he dances he cant take full control over the stage..ty can just stand there and make the whole stage his....even dy who is far from all mebers of 127 in dancing gives me the vibe of a charismatic personality when he performs on stage...ofcrs I knw mark is way better than anyone I mentioned..I am not trying to demeaning him with his skills..but u knw like sometimes his face overpower whatever hairstyle nd colour he is having...with his face I cant notice his hairstyles nd colour..that much power his face can hold..but why there is no an overall impression or the power of stage controll..if he is ur bias or bias of any readers here please dont be offended I am just sharing my thoughts....thankyou...

I think this is a question for those who learn dance.

Personally, I can't name such a case. (Maybe in Dream?) He is very withdrawn in himself when he dances, head low, he is not projecting to the audience. He is more noticeable and commanding as a rapper, he is good with power stances (like in Resonance).

Many people who do dance rankings place him above Taeyong. As I understand, he has clean lines, his movements are sharp, the footwork, and other technical things. But then again, it seems to me (street, hip-hop and other modern genres) dancers respect the control of the body, groove, tricks, difficulty, musicality, creativeness (and Mark can freestyle some). Meanwhile the commonfolk like us are more attracted to stage presence, personal flavour, small details with hands Taeyong does or fluidity of the body, foxy smiles, sexyness Ten shows. Or Doyoung's facial expressions as of late, pointed hand gestures during his solo parts.

Personally, I'm not into dancing as an artform or a kind of sport (something cool to show off). Maybe it's because I'm a zoologist with love for animals, but I'm most captivated with the power in the movement, agility, hand gestures. For that reason I like Chinese traditional dance. And for the same reason I enjoy Jaehyun. Like he shines in the front of the final Resonance line-up. All power and vigor. I will prefer k-pop dances like this one to the type WayV sometime does (with all the unnessesary "story telling" movements).

Mark is very boyish, same as his face, he doesn't really change. In any concept his true self shines through. And a boy is not a king. He lacks gravitas. Remember how many times it took him to do that scene with red revolvers for the Sticker MV? Heh. Mark can do evil, for example (his Super M promos, eh, I miss the group...), but that off stage, before the camera, as an actor.

I guess with dancing it is his eagerness? diligence? I don't know wich word to choose to describe... anyway, "he is doing his best, 100% energy" that what I get from the way Mark dances and performs. There is little room for artisticity. He moves from one move to another without a pause. Taeyong, on the other hand, sprinkles everything with some creations, ideas. A smirk here, a twirl there, a play with fingers or a fleeting facial expression. That's why he draws attention.

As shy as Tae is, on the stage he turns into another being. Mark stays himself.

[youhavereachedtheendofpie]

Yeah, you're right that that is what makes him interesting. I do think that as a character, he would be boring if he were "perfect" and I feel like he might come off as too righteous. I do think his trauma informs a lot of his character and it's so sad. Like so, so sad. I guess it's just frustrating from a modern context because I'm like, yo, you KNOW you're suffering. And you're hurting other people because of that. We're clearly only in the middle of the story and also as a person who had a bias towards Miles, I side-eye Miguel a lot, but that's personal lol. Like, very attractive man, absolutely trash personality currently going on lol. I think I really responded to Hobie's character a lot because deep down, beyond the rebelliousness, he was actually looking out for Miles and encouraging him to think for hinself and protect himself and others. Hobie sort of serves as a foil to Miguel and I find that dynamic interesting. There are definitely parts of Miguel I do like, though. Like, it's clear he really values family and while he comes across as curmudgeonly, he cares about Peter and Mayday and truly respects Jess. I just wish he could extend that to the younger people and I think he thinks he is doing that, in his own way, but his behavior really reminded me of like, unevolved, traumatized parents in real life, so my reaction to him was like, fuck off with that shit, man lol. It may just be me, but it's hard to separate some aspects of the characters because they seemed so intertwined. It's hard to separate duty and family. Like, Peter is sort of like another father figure to Miles, so he feel very betrayed when he finds out the truth of what's going on. Hobie was acting like a brother to Miles and Gwen. She saw Jess as a mentor and def wanted her to serve as a parent figure, though Jess was maintain boundaries around that. Like, they are heroes and have obligations but it's difficult to keep those dynamics separate. So when Miles comes to Miguel, hoping to connect with him and Miguel is an asshole and is all business, when there is a clear connection the Spider people have and everyone is acknoledging that, it was frustrating. But I'm curious to see what will happen in the next movie. I have the feeling Miguel and Gwen will fight, and I kinda wanna see that lol. It would be an interesting parallel to their first meeting.

combining both your asks into one for efficiency lol

we could probably go on talking about this until the next movie comes out, which is what makes it great C: there's just so much to discuss, so many angles, so many great characters <3

and of course it is very much the point that the characters can't see themselves from our vantage point as the audience. just like in your own life you are constrained by your own point of view and considering others requires an active effort on your own part. it doesn't just happen, you have to choose it

lol but I do love how it's essentially just

Miguel: nearly threw hands with a twelve-year-old 😑 Miles: what do you mean 'nearly'? also I'm fifteen 🤨

[lazydoodlesandfanfic]

Helping Through Stress (Bucky Barnes X Male!Reader)

Characters: Bucky Barnes X Male!Reader

Universe: Marvel, Avengers

Warnings: Mention of potential death

Request: hi!! could i request a Bucky x male reader where r is stressed n’ goes to Bucky for comfort so they have a movie date with hot chocolate and cuddling? I feel like it would be cute :)

Bucky was still catching up with modern technology. Most of his appliances in his apartment were either manual, in their simplest form with instructions sticky noted beside them to remind him how to use it thanks to Steve, and out-dated, such as his television which was second hand, a heavy, staticity cube that came with a remote that didn’t work half the time, and his flip phone that didn’t have internet access and the only game on it was snake, not that he minded. All he needed to know was how to open, read and respond to texts, and to call, and he knew how to do that. 

He didn’t use his phone often. People called him and texted him, but he had a tendency to just read their message and then act on them and not respond. Tonight was no different. Tonight, he had gotten a text from you, asking rather simply if you could come over in an hour. For anyone else, they’d ask for more information. Did you just want to see him? Catch up? Did you have something to tell him? Bucky didn’t ask anything like that though. He replied with a simple ‘yes’ and then got up from his spot on the couch, grabbed his coat and wallet, put his shoes on, and left his apartment to head to the store just around the corner. 

Bucky hadn’t known you very long admittedly. He’d joined the Avengers recently and he kept to himself to the best of his ability so it took a while for him to actually meet you. However, you two become quick friends in record time, and you were close. Super close. You two clicked together so well that you two went on a date just to see if you two clicked in that way, to see if there were any actual feelings there. Turns out you did, and you’d been dating ever since, and it meant you spent quite a lot of time together. It was probably because of this that he was able to read you perfectly, even over the phone via call or text. He knew that usually when you texted, you added an emoji, a kiss, and would give him more information, like a reason as to why you wanted to come over, usually to show him something. That text didn’t have any of that. It was bland, empty of information or your character. His second hint on what he should do is what he already knew prior to this. The last time he saw you, you had huffed and told him you had a big meeting with some official representatives who already had a negative bias against you and the team and you were going to be the team’s rep. That meeting was that afternoon, not even a few hours ago. He didn’t have to guess it either didn’t go well, or it’s emotionall drained you. You were stressed and upset, and Bucky knew exactly how to make you feel better. 

He walked into the small shop, crammed with isles of products, and immediately walked to the snack isle to pick out some of your favourite sweets and chocolate brands, before going to the small section of movies they had that were usually second hand bad movies. He looked for one that looked particularly bad, picked it up, and walked to the front, paying for them and then headed back to his apartment to prepare for your arrival. That included pulling the spare blankets from under his bed, preparing your snacks in bowls and placing them on the coffee table, and also preparing your favourite hot drink, planning it so by the time it was nearly finished heating up, you’d be at his door, and he got the timing perfect. It wasn’t long till he heard you knock on the door, and he went to meet you.

He opened the door, seeing you still dressed sensibly from a day at work, telling him you came right here. You didn’t barge in, or even ask to come in or say hello. You stood there, looking at the floor, almost seeming to have forgotten you’d knocked on the door and had been waiting for him to answer. Bucky reached out to you, pulling you towards him till he could wrap you in his arms in his doorway. “Bad day?” He whispered in your ear, and getting a nod that he felt in his shoulder where you rested your head. “Come on then.” He told you softly, guiding you into his apartment and shutting the door behind you. 

Bucky watched you as you dragged yourself to the couch, dropping into it and putting your head in your hands. “That couldn’t have gone any worse.” You commented. Bucky didn’t comment, simply grabbing a blanket thrown over the arm of the couch and wrapped it around your shoulders. You acknowledge it, looking up, and pulling the blanket around you tighter. You only then seemed to process more of your surroundings. Drawn curtains, snacks on the table, the television on and muted on the opening screen of some movie. You then saw Bucky move, walking into his kitchen. Your eyes remained on the door frame until he emerged again with two mugs in his hands, placing them on the table.

“Tell me what happened.” Bucky instructed, coming and sitting beside you, your arms touching by his close he was. 

“...They came in already riled up. They already didn’t want to co-operate and it made having any other conversation far from civil. In the end we had to re-arrange to have another meeting with other people there to try and neutralise the playing field, which means for the time being we don’t have an agreement with them, which if anything happens where we’d need their resources or help, we’re at a stand still which could cost lives and-” 

“You tried your best, didn’t you?” Bucky questioned, making you pause in your rambling. You nodded vigorously, remembering how you were practically begging for them to listen to you- to calm down, to see your side and your argument and them blatantly refusing to listen. “Then what else could you have done? If something happens in the meantime before we can sort this out, that’s on them, and I’ll stand by you on that and so will everyone else and you know it. You did your best, and you should remember that.” He told you. You sighed with defeat, leaning into him so you could rest your head onto your boyfriend’s shoulder, who in return pulled you close and rested his head on your yours. “Don’t stress about it, alright? Anyway, I got you some stuff to cheer you up.” 

“I can see that.” You chuckled, eyeing up the treats in front of you, wondering where to start, before looking up at your boyfriend, and giving him a quick peck on the lips. “Thank you James. I really appreciate it.” You told him, begging a genuine smile in return.

Hope you like it! If you have any questions, please send them in! 

*Not my gif

TAGS:  @klanceiscannon14​ @marvelhoeingismyhobby-blog​ @bellamyblakemorley @dummiesshort  @freyathehuntress​ @abbybills22-blog​ @mutantjediavenger​ @theoraekensnotsosecretlover​ @alicedanganh @sleutherclaw @sleepy-coffee-bean @stawwpp ​ @dailyteambucky​ @mxrvelsaos​  @rebellionofthecattle  @hello-love-youre-pretty  @courtneychicken​  @graysonmalfoy​ @bellero​ @originalpottervengerlock​ @supernatural-pan​ @esoltis280​ @lady-of-lies​ @lenaswritingandstuff @macbetheliza @mandywholock1980​ @cdwmtjb8​ @caswinchester2000​ @determinedpines​ @huntheimpossible @automaticbakeryfreakshoe

[maverick-werewolf]

Modern Dragon Designs - Where they came from

Your regularly scheduled werewolf facts will return soon. For now, we provide this special, because you may not realize this, but I love dragons. There’s a reason one of my protagonists is basically obsessed with dragons.

Once upon a time, there was a movie - I don’t see anyone talk about it, I’m not even sure how many people are familiar with it...

It’s called Reign of Fire.

This movie shaped the modern Hollywoodian concept of dragons. Seriously, it did. Hear me out.

Released in 2002, Reign of Fire was a movie about - essentially - dragons as that age-old trope of “let’s take one monster and turn them into an overpopulated zombie plague so we can use them to tell a story about humans and make the monster just this brainless evil locust swarm backdrop.” This has happened to a lot of monsters by now.

But wait, these dragons aren’t like the dragons you might be used to: these dragons were completely redesigned from the ground up by the filmmaker(s) in order to make a more “realistic” and “animalistic” dragon that was acceptable by Hollywood, who generally views “dragon movies” (like so many other fantasy things...) as cheesy and silly. Market your movie as a film about dragons and you probably won’t get a deal. Well, turns out, coming up with your own gritty dragon designs worked!

Doesn’t this remind you of every other dragon you’ve seen in a movie for the last, you know, 18 years? Although it actually looks quite a bit cooler than those other ones that came after it

Please note that while I may sound sarcastic, jaded, and often maybe a bit scathing, I mean nothing against the creators of Reign of Fire or director Rob Bowman. I watched the movie in theaters when it released. I applaud Bowman for coming up with unique and interesting dragon designs, in order to have a different take on the creatures, so that they fit the story he wanted to tell, instead of doing what so many people do and completely co-opting concepts without trying to alter them to fit anything and... yeah... okay, I’m not going to talk about werewolf things in this post. Getting back on track:

What I don’t applaud is everyone ripping off Reign of Fire for their own dragons, doubly so because most of these people didn’t even take into account the reasons why it was designed that way. They should have left his dragons alone and come up with their own thing, but at least I guess Bowman can go down in history as the man who designed every Hollywood dragon for over a decade to come - with no signs of stopping - even down to the tail shape.

On Vice, you can find an article and interview with Rob Bowman, the director of Reign of Fire, discussing how he came up with this dragon design and how influential it has become. I highly recommend giving it a read.

Please note the Vice article is clearly written with the bias of someone who “can’t take dragons seriously,” so it’s also a good look at the Hollywood mindset about dragons and how much Hollywood treats fantasy in general like garbage (jerks).

It’s impossible to pretend this movie didn’t basically reshape modern dragons. Let’s get to the details...

Animalistic Design

Dragons in popular culture are generally - or at least they were generally - assumed to be powerful, intelligent creatures, often of a higher nature than humans and other mere mortals. They may be good or evil, but one can’t understate that traditional fantasy dragons are regal and majestic either way.

Reign of Fire wanted to usurp the majestic, intelligent dragon image, creating a smaller, hunched, knuckle-dragging sort of dragon that looks more like an animal - like a pteranodon. This is because the dragons in Reign of Fire are not exceptionally intelligent, noble beings that speak and hoard gold and have the wisdom of the ages. They are brutal hunters that set things on fire and eat everything smaller than them. So this design choice was a conscious one and a smart one.

The dragons in Reign of Fire are meant to be more scientific, more plausible, and also simpler, in a manner of speaking. They are not colorful, magical, ancient fantasy dragons...

Trouble is, everyone took cues from this design for their talking wise noble fantasy dragons, and it... doesn’t really work, at least if you ask me.

The dragon design in Reign of Fire looks like an ancestral throwback, an evolutionary ancestor to the intelligent, talking fantasy dragon, although they are smaller. They’re hunched, they haven’t evolved forelegs independent of their wings... you get the idea. Take a look at the “proto-drakes” in World of Warcraft versus the ordinary drakes, which have tiny dangly T-rex forelegs that haven’t fully developed yet, so they walk like the Reign of Fire dragons.

A proto-drake in World of Warcraft - also say hi to my worgen warrior

So many things taking this design for their intelligent, “higher being” dragons seems kind of... odd to me, to say the least. Unfortunately, Hollywood decided that’s the only way moviegoers can “take dragons seriously,” so here we are.

“Wyvern” - Two Legs vs Four

Municipal arms of Stjørdal, Norway

In medieval heraldry, there came to be a creature called a wyvern. Now, the etymology on the term “wyvern” is a little shaky. It originally didn’t specifically refer to a “two-legged dragon.” It is thought to mean/be derived from words meaning anything ranging from “asp” to “light javelin,” and essentially boils down to a flying serpent. It is noteworthy, of course, that the word “dragon” basically just means “serpent” too.

In heraldry, though, “wyvern” came to refer to a two-legged dragon - at least, if you ask the English, Scottish, and Irish; elsewhere in Europe, they may not be so picky. And now, in modern pop culture (such as Dungeons and Dragons), we often use it in the same sense.

Wyverns weren’t really a “thing” in folklore, just as dragons in folklore didn’t look like our modern idea of a dragon. It’s debatable whether the father of our modern concept of dragons, Fafnir (from whom Tolkien drew inspiration for Smaug), even had wings at all; he was essentially a serpent, perhaps with legs. Point is, wyverns come from heraldry, especially the specificity of two legs versus four.

So now you know why you might see a lot of people (myself included) referring to this design as a “wyvern design” for a dragon.

Dull Coloration - Grey and Brown over Red, Blue, Green...

There’s something else - something very important - that Hollywood took from Reign of Fire... the concept that dragons aren’t pretty colors and are, in fact, various hues of grey and brown, and any more contrasting colors are just vague indications instead of bright red scales.

Now, Reign of Fire obviously did this because - again - they were going for the more animalistic, natural look as opposed to the mysterious majestic magical being look. Okay, that’s fine. But then Hollywood decided that fantasy, too, has to be devoid of dragons with bright colors.

The green dragon in Game of Thrones

There are countless examples of this in modern media. Any dragon that was previously brightly colored has been dulled pretty much to an extreme. Sometimes you might catch a fleeting glimpse of them looking like a brighter shade, but it was probably just a trick of the light. Why? Because all dragons are desaturated to the point of being almost indistinguishable by color.

The golden dragon in The Witcher Netflix series

This is also why you see so many mods on the Skyrim Nexus called things like “true red dragon.”

There are plenty more examples of this - I’m sure you can see the difference when you look at those dragons and other modern film dragons over, say, something like this...

Red dragon in D&D

And now we move on to...

The Fire Breathing - Chemicals, not Magic

Bowman insisted on ditching traditional fire breathing (you don't want the audience wondering whether the dragon's mouth is being burnt up with every flame) and again looked to the animal kingdom for inspiration. The king cobra, once again, was a great starting point. It doesn't spray fire, but it can spit its venom. Even more useful was the bombardier beetle, which shoots two chemicals from its abdomen that, once mixed, create a hot, burning spray. Bowman used these real-world examples to inspire his own dragons. They don't breathe fire exactly, but rather spit chemicals from two different sacks in their mouths that, when combined, ignite. "That's anatomy. That's already been designed, so we're going to draw from there," he said.

(quoted from the Vice article linked to earlier in this post)

The Hungarian Horntail in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - fire is streaming from two separate organs in the mouth, but they aren’t chemicals mixing together like in Reign of Fire...

The director of Reign of Fire wanted his dragons to be more natural in that they breathe fire through organic means, based on chemical reactions, instead of the usual dragon magic. But lots of people loved this “mouth flap”/”mouth organ” design with “streams” of fire coming from the mouth instead of fire flowing directly from the dragon’s throat, so now you see it pretty dang often.

Horns? Brow Ridges!

Another thing that is basically out now in dragon designs is the real horns of many traditional dragons, like Spyro, and like the dragons in Dungeons & Dragons used to have.

These days, it’s all about brow ridges and big spiny scales that aren’t separate horns, they’re just big pointed scales or piles of scales or bone ridges - and they aren’t a different color than the dragon’s scales, either, pretty often. And, in general, dragon’s horns have become much smaller and far more numerous, and more like spines/ridges, as opposed to the great, sweeping horns of classical dragons.

Firkraag, the red dragon, in the D&D video game Baldur’s Gate II, from 2000

Firkraag is a very traditional dragon. Now, while Dungeons & Dragons has generally kept more traditional dragons (yay!), they did fall into the brow ridge horn thing - although they, thankfully, didn’t make the horns smaller and subtler and more numerous little spikes, like so many other modern dragon designs. They also went with the brow ridge horns for tieflings (once humans with demon blood, then some weird thing in 4E, and now I think they’re humans with demon blood again), as opposed to the ordinary horns of the tieflings in previous editions of D&D.

Skyrim dragon head concept art

The Desolation of Smaug(’s design)

Here is... a big one. Here, we’ll talk some about the production of The Hobbit films over time, so we’re going behind the scenes.

Alright, so we all know Smaug, probably, by pop culture osmosis if nothing else. He is the quintessential dragon. He’s basically the founder of all Western dragon concepts: he’s big, he’s red, he hoards gold, he’s extremely intelligent and talks, etc. You get the picture. Every dragon that we have borrowed at least something from Smaug. And, in turn, he was inspired by Fafnir, the father of all our dragon concepts, from Norse mythology - but Tolkien took it all a step further and created the concept of dragons that we have today. Or, well, the not Reign of Fire ones. The fantasy ones.

A map drawn by Tolkien: notice the winged, four-legged Smaug over his mountain

During the first Hobbit movie, An Unexpected Journey, we see Smaug attack the Lonely Mountain...

In this clip, you can plainly see that Smaug has four legs. This was actually edited slightly for later editions of the movie, or so I’ve heard (I haven’t watched any later editions).

I can tell you for certain that when I saw the theatrical release, it was like this, too. It is apparent throughout the scene that Smaug has four legs and wings, separately. I know because I was paying very, very close attention, because I was going to be very upset if Hollywood turned Smaug into a wyvern.

Well, they did - later.

Smaug the wyvern looking like just another slightly different take on the bog-standard Hollywood dragon

Apparently, some studio exec decided that having a traditional fantasy dragon, even if this dragon happens to be frelling Smaug himself, would not be okay in this modern Hollywood world. So we ended up with a dull reddish spiney hunching knuckle-dragging wyvern with an angler mouth (I’m sorry; I really am sorry if you like the design, that’s totally fine, it’s a fine design, I am glad you enjoyed it, but Smaug shouldn’t have looked that way IMO and forgive me but I am still in pain over it) in place of a more traditional dragon that held more to things like, I dunno, how Tolkien himself drew Smaug. Smaug’s movie design flies right in the face of that and destroyed our chance to finally see a proper traditional dragon done justice on the big screen.

Tolkien’s art of Smaug - note the position of the forelegs, separate from the wings, like in the earlier map

This is all just one big example why we should be thankful that The Lord of the Rings films were all shot in one go, so no one could alter important things like the design of the fantasy genre’s father of all dragons, in the middle of production. Of course, the production on The Hobbit movies was a nightmare at best, as you can read about in assorted other articles, and Peter Jackson was very unhappy with what the studio had him do to the series. All of that is just another story, I suppose.

Dragons Redesigned by Reign of Fire: Example List

Now that we’ve gone over just a few of the talking points about Reign of Fire’s dragon designs (although I didn’t even get into the flat, spaded tail look in detail), here’s an undoubtedly incomplete list of several examples that have either entirely taken the design and/or were massively influenced by it...

(please note that not everything in this list held entirely to Reign of Fire’s design, obviously; some have the fire, some don’t; some have horns, some have head/brow ridges; but all of them are wyverns and most are darkly-colored)

Skyrim - Obvious influence with the general design, skin/scales and ridges design, as well as coloration; however, it is noteworthy that the Elder Scrolls has had dragons with no forelegs since at least 1998, in the game Redguard - though that dragon was also very brightly-colored (also of note: Peryite, while technically a Daedric prince and not a dragon, had four legs at least as far back as Daggerfall in 1996)

The Hobbit films, specifically The Desolation of Smaug onward - as mentioned before

Harry Potter movies - Wholesale. Two streams of fire from mouth flaps in Goblet of Fire, generally dull greyish and/or brownish colorations, no forelegs, short/simple horns that are mostly ridges...

Gods of Egypt - The giant fire-breathing cobras have the mouth flaps

Game of Thrones - This one’s pretty obvious too.

Disney’s Maleficent - In the new live action Disney movie(s), the dragon falls right into this design (though the fire doesn’t come from mouth flaps)

Netflix Witcher series - Villentretenmerth is very much a wyvern design and a dull shade, and he in fact has no horns at all, even though dragons weren’t portrayed this way in any previous Witcher adaptations

Stargate SG1 (season 10) - In the episode series “The Quest,” a dragon appears and... well, it looks just like all those other dragons, though the fire does come from its throat.

Beowulf (2008) - I try not to ever talk about or think about this film, but I have to just throw out there that the dragon is very much Reign of Fire, especially with that wyvern design.

Seventh Son - If you can call Malkin a dragon  - she was called one, I think - she definitely also has the same kind of dull-colored wyvern design.

Sucker Punch (movie)

Lots and lots of B-movies and direct to DVD/streaming films - Dawn of the Dragonslayer, Dragon (2006), Dragon Crusaders...

Something to note, also, is that cartoons, anime, and other non-film media is mostly - but not entirely - free from this influence. Cartoons especially are free from it, partially because they aren’t influenced by Hollywood producers who want “serious” and “realistic” dragons. Cartoons are allowed to have magical, colorful, four-legged dragons. Unfortunately, we are deprived of those in live action film and television, by and large.

There are still other exceptions - most notably things that were created before this influence, like Dragonheart and its spinoffs and sequels, which have thankfully kept their dragon designs consistent instead of erasing their forelegs.

Of course, why dragons are depicted as four-legged and winged in the first place - and when this depiction arose - is another topic entirely. I’m not going into that right now, seeing as how this post is already preposterously long.

Long story short, I was rewatching the movie Gods of Egypt and, when I saw the giant cobra monsters breathe fire, I was possessed to write this article. Because Reign of Fire’s influence is something I have always noticed ever since its release, and something my brother and I talk about a lot (and everyone who knows me has surely heard me talk about it, too) - because, frankly, it’s always bothered me. My favorite dragons are traditional dragons: four legs, bright colors, wings, horns, breathing fire, the works.

So, although the original creator of these design ideas did something cool and different because he wanted to do his own take on dragons, Hollywood decided that these design cues should be taken to dumb down all dragons forever, the same way that Hollywood has dumbed down so many monster designs so that the only acceptable ones just a bunch of near-replicas of each other, including werewolves.

I think it’s very sad that film producers think you can’t take something like dragons or werewolves seriously unless they are dull, nontraditional, and ugly. And I say ugly in the sense of these are not pretty, majestic fantasy designs - they are, many of them, intended to be ugly. Though I personally also hold the opinion that most of them are ugly regardless of if they are intended to be ugly.

So - now you know! If you haven’t seen Reign of Fire, go check it out to meet the father of modern dragon designs, from the color of their hides to the shape of their bodies, the smaller horns, and - sometimes - even their tails.

(Special thanks to everyone on my discord who helped me compile this list, as well as of course my brother and all our ranting at/with each other on this topic over many years)

If you like this post, maybe you’ll enjoy the rest of my blog, where I post a lot about folklore and all kinds of monsters (especially werewolves)!

Werewolf Facts --- Patreon

[peonycats]

Hello!! I was wondering how you research historical clothing and hairstyles? I find myself having a lot of trouble with this.

HMMMMM okay this is a bit of a complicated topic to answer, but I'll try my best!

(also @ those typically european/western and/or 19th-20th century fashion historians would probably roast the hell at of me since im a bit more lenient and make some guesses here and there wehh)

DISCLAIMER: I’m not a professional fashion historian!

Now, I definitely agree that if you looked up, for example, 12th century West African clothing, you're probably not going to come up with anything super useful or relevant. Unfortunately, for people looking for these kind of historical clothing, the search engine just... isn’t super good at getting resources to them

1. Contemporary Sources- Photos & Art

Now, the best solution is obviously to get drawings and references that were taken during said historical period. Photos only come into play for an extremely small frame of time, so you can also try referencing art from the period, whether it’s carvings, coins, or paintings! I referenced a lot of kushite carvings and reliefs in their pyramids and temples when i was designing Miss Kush and clothes!

I would advise you to be careful of art created by outsiders even if they were made around the same time (x cultural-political) entity was around, as there’s bound to be a lot of outside bias. What comes to mind first is 18th -19th century Orientalist art, especially of harem women. Now of course that isn’t to say that art created by outsiders can’t be useful or accurate in some respects, or that even art created by those inside the culture can’t be biased- rather, remain skeptical of the art’s wider context and depiction. If something in a piece of art seems out of place or incongruous with other research has told you about a period, it probably is off! Look into it!

(This is why I also advise you to do general research into a period to get some background knowledge, allowing you to tell what is off to begin with)

(While you can’t make an outfit out of just jewelry, I also highly recommend looking up archaeological finds of the time period- they tend to dig up a lot of jewelry, as it’s more long lasting than fabric, and much of it is positively gorgeous!)

2. Historical Recreations (+ Educated Guesses ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

For some periods of history and civilizations, we have extremely limited sources and even straight up no images of what they would have worn- in these cases, I often try referencing what the people in the area currently wear as traditional wear and making adjustments accordingly, like what materials would’ve been popular or available, taking into account class and statis, looking at more vintage photos of cultures before wide scale western contact. For more isolated and less cosmopolitan cultures, it should be noted that their clothing tends not to change a lot (or at least slower) compared to empires; this is a trend, and not a hard rule obvi

(One of my hobbies is collecting vintage photos! Granted, these can be super hard to track down the sources (sometimes you can only rely what someone/ most ppl label the photos as 😭) and what exactly they depict, whether it be anachronistic terms or vague labels that aren't very helpful, so again, these may be more helpful to you if you already have some background knowledge on the place ur studying!)

Now, this definitely has to be taken with a grain of salt- as is to be expected, a lot of traditional costumes have taken a significant amount of western influence in cut and form and makeup, etc etc. Using modern day traditional clothing may also not even stand given certain situations, like migration of a new ppl group replacing another ppl, or just drastic cultural shifts. For example, using traditional countryside Spanish clothing to reference for Iberian clothing probably won’t be super helpful. Exercise caution!

Similar to how you should be skeptical of contemporary art made by outsiders, be very skeptical about a lot of depictions of ancient or old cultures and civilizations. Again, my same advice of learning about common misconceptions and general fashion trends so you can identify what recreations are accurate still stands 

Don’t forget about actual historical recreations and re-enactors too! Those can be super useful (if accurate) as well!

Again, same advice of verifying sources and interrogating your source’s biases applies to everything I’ve said today, but for historical clothing of especially less obscure cultures and historical periods, I find myself making a lot of educated guesses on what “seems correct“ given what I have know of a period, whether it be judging historical recreations, verifying the authenticity of a vintage photo, or trying to interpret a dress element from a carving 😅

Okay that was like a long post but yeah that’s my approach! Hope that helped u!!

[whumpster-fire]

Extremely Hot His Dark Materials Take:

The conventional wisdom that daemons’ settled forms represent who you truly are as a person and are a unique, symbolic representation of it is what’s said in-universe but it isn’t true, or at the very least isn’t the whole truth. IDC what Philip Pullman’s said is actually canon, stuff like “Servants usually have dog demons because they have a submissive/servile nature” is really not plausible fite me.

Animal symbolism is a social construct and is not universal among cultures, and just like the alethiometer symbols, an animal species can have many meanings. As a result, for any one person there are usually many species which are a “valid” representation of their soul, and which one their daemon actually settles as is not set in stone from birth. Daemons don’t consciously choose their settled form - and humans certainly don’t - but it reflects a variety of influences, including symbolic “nature” but also cultural influences, social pressures, what animals the daemon actually knows about, the nature of the relationship between the human and daemon, and what forms are physically comfortable or practical. But the common uniting factor in all of those is that a daemon’s form reflects what you want and need as much as what you are. Not superficial wants, but deep deep psychological needs and what’s important to you. And sometimes fears as well.

Factor #1: Societal Bias

Strong cultural predispositions toward settled form, combined with form stereotyping. I think it was said in the books that “most servants had dog daemons because deep down they wanted to be told what to do.” Think about this: is this likely to be true? Given that people generally wind up in jobs by luck of the draw and by what’s available, and most people even in the most socially mobile modern societies usually don’t end up in their “true calling,” and in Lyra’s world your occupation seems to very often be determined by your birth. Do you really think all the kids like Roger Parslow, who’s working as a kitchen boy because his aunt who was a servant at Jordan College raised him, are naturally subservient? Well, is everyone who works in a service industry job IRL naturally subservient? Hell no! However, this is a very, very convenient lie for a classist society that teaches people that they were born into a “station” in society to tell. If your daemon settles as a dog, obviously you were meant to be a servant all along, and you and your daemon spending your entire childhood being told that because this is the station you’re being born and raised into your daemon should be a dog or some other “appropriate” form and couldn’t possibly cause them to be biased towards canine forms by this.

But if a daemon takes a form that’s obviously unfit for their station, clearly your true calling is elsewhere and it was never truly meant to be. It’s hard to falsify as long as most daemons are settling in “expected” forms. And most do, at least to an extent. A daemon’s form is influenced by drives and desires, and while most people don’t necessarily want to be bossed around and told what to do, most people do want to fit in.

And having fairly broad categories of “expected” can help that, because that gives room for daemons to find a form within that category that genuinely fits their nature. Someone extremely independent and strong-willed but growing up always expected to be a servant might end up with a husky daemon. Someone with a leading (or even controlling) personality might have a herding breed. The same goes for Gyptians and Witches being expected to usually have bird daemons.

On the other hand people with certain daemon forms might also be actively recruited for certain jobs, based on both symbolism and the physical abilities of that form - e.g. the Tartar mercenaries and other soldiers seem to almost all have wolf daemons. These may be very common in their culture to begin with, and then there’s further selection based on the symbolism of “You’re a wolf, you’re powerful, noble, and a natural killer but you’re a loyal pack animal, you’d make a great soldier.” But then in addition to that, because of the no touching rules, people in jobs where they fight other people are at an advantage if their daemon can fight other daemons.

Factor #2: Age

Settling age is... around early-to-mid puberty it seems like. I’ve seen speculation that it would be later in more modern societies as the age of maturity drifts over, but it seems like 12-14 is fairly common. But brain development continues until around 25. Like... seriously. Daemons are settling when their humans would be middle-schoolers in our world. People mature and change a huge amount in that decade of “settled but not fully mature.” Unless daemons can presciently predict how they’ll change over time - or if the soul’s nature is fixed and people tend to change in away that approaches that over time - your daemon’s form may be based on what you were like at settling age.

Factor #3: Knowledge and Familiarity

His Dark Materials is mostly based in Europe / Northern Eurasia, and the vast, vast majority of the settled daemon forms in the novels are native to that region. Off the top of my head the exceptions are Stelmaria (a snow leopard, native to the Himalayas but that’s still an animal she and Lord Asriel could have encountered / read about as a child), Mrs. Coulter’s daemon (a monkey, I don’t think we’re ever told what species. Not native to Europe but again Marisa had the resources to travel, read about exotic species, visit zoos, etc and everything about them is weird, IIRC the African soldiers in Amber Spyglass had various african daemon forms (so, where they’re actually from), and Hester. Hester’s the most important because while she took the form of an arctic hare, which is native to North America where Lee’s from, her form is native to a completely different part of North America, that she and Lee probably wouldn’t have been familiar with, and it took years for anyone including her to even notice.

This suggests daemons may be able to take forms that are unknown to them, but we never see a raccoon or an oppossum or a bobcat or some australian animal as a daemon as far as I know, so my best guess is that they had some secondhand knowledge of the arctic and had at least seen what an Arctic Hare looked like but forgot how to tell one apart from a jackrabbit, Hester had an unconscious longing for the North that neither of them were aware of, and she had a strong and possibly less-unconscious desire to get the hell out of Texas at sometime around settling age. And they assumed she was a jackrabbit because daemons usually don’t take forms they’re not familiar with.

Factor #4: Physical Preference

A daemon is not a shadow or a heraldic crest - they’re not just an insubstantial symbolic reflection. A daemon is an integral part of a person’s being, and they are one, but at the same time the daemon are a living, breathing creature even if their physical body is unstable. One soul, two bodies, two minds, two personalities. Their form subjects them to some - although not all - of the physical abilities and limitations that animal would have, and the same sensations.

Again, a daemon’s form is often influenced by what’s important to them, and to the pair. Most daemons take on a huge number of forms throughout childhood, and there are some things about those forms that are important to them. For some daemons the freedom of movement of flight is a fun, childish thing to play around with, and perhaps tactically useful, but it isn’t torture to give it up. For others, flight and the freedom it represents are their very heart and to be bound to a grounded form forever would be unbearable. Some can’t give up the ability to take small forms that can hide and go unnoticed, but some hate the vulnerability and helplessness of small size and could never be happy in a form that can’t walk alongside their human without fear of being kicked or stepped on. Some can’t give up the joy of swimming, or climbing, and for some their humans can’t. The daemon of someone who is a mountaineer and climber in their soul won’t be a snapping turtle. And... this is complicated, because part of it’s the human’s nature, but part of it is tied up in experiences which the human can feel too, and that are important to them, but they don’t experience in quite the same way.

Sometimes it’s just too convenient. Witches’ daemons are nearly always birds because witches spend much of their time in the air and can separate from their daemons, and only with flight of their own can a daemon take advantage of this power; in a flightless form they would take far longer to travel any distance, and their witches would have to land every time they separated or reunited. Another animal, like a fox or a mink or a rabbit, might fit with a witch’s nature too, but a witch’s daemon will become a hawk or a heron or a dove instead.

And sometimes a certain from is just comfortable and it just feels right even though the symbolism might not fit the stereotypes.

Factor #5: Human-Daemon Relationships

This is something I talked about a bit in my post about autism and daemons: the form a daemon settles as is often affected by the nature of their relationship with their human.

First of all: barring severe internal conflict or mental illness, while a daemon’s settled form is not chosen by the human and does not follow their whims, they don’t take a form that makes their shared life inconvenient and miserable. Out of how many sailors, John Faa and Farder Corram knew what, one guy with a dolphin daemon? Usually sailors’ daemons would be seabirds or otters, or animals like cats and rats that aren’t technically aquatic but are well-adapted to living on a boat. Does this mean that the sea isn’t their true love? No: it means no matter how much you love the sea being trapped on a ship for their entire life (and not even the entire ship: how high in the rigging can you climb without going too far from your daemon who can’t leave the water?) sucks and is actively dangerous. Imagine your ship is wrecked and your daemon carries you to shore through the storm (because humans die of hypothermia if left in the water too long in many parts of the oceans)... except you’re literally unable to get out of reach of the crashing waves that will drown you, sweep you away, or batter you to death, without dragging your daemon up the beach and then they’re stranding and dying, and you can’t go get fresh water which your body needs because your soul is an anchor binding you to the water. How many things that are a sailor’s job are you unable to do because you can’t go more than like ten yards from water deep enough to swim in?

Daemons do not consciously choose their forms, but their subconscious is not stupid. Taking a form like a dolphin doesn’t mean the daemon is symbolically expressing their nature, it means the human is denying it to the point where their own daemon is afraid of being torn away from it and cannot trust their human. But again, this event is happening at middle-school age, so what’s likely happening is something like a 14-year-old cabin boy falling in love with a girl in town and wanting to marry her and move inland and abandon the sea forever, and his daemon being horrified by the idea and wanting to make sure it can. not. happen. ever. And then both of their lives are ruined. Meanwhile the other cabin boy on the boat had a non-dysfunctional relationship with his daemon, who settled as a seagull and trusts that when he goes to visit family a little ways inland for a couple days it won’t be permanent.

Anyway: disregarding dysfunctional people like Mrs. Coulter, some humans and daemons are more physically affectionate with their counterparts than others, and in different ways.

Some pairs are happy spending most of their time at the edge of their not-painful range. Some pairs are perfectly comfortable with the daemon taking a tiny form and hiding in their human’s coat pocket most of the time and sneaking around the rest, and with the daemon hardly ever speaking to other humans, and that closeness and the moments of being held in the palm of their human’s hand and being stroked gently with one or two fingers is perfect for them. Some pairs are content with the distance a form like a bird of prey imposes, where the daemon must perch near their human because their claws would injure them if they landed on their shoulder or arm without protective clothing.

But many people and daemons are more “touchy” with each other, for whom the physical nature of the bond between human and daemon cannot possibly be given up. Some daemons settle in the forms they took to fly, or to hide, or spy, or fight, but many settle in the forms they took to rest, to soothe and comfort, to lick wounds and let their fur or feathers be stroked, to share body heat, and sometimes to help hold their humans upright or drag them to safety. Some pairs are content with the daemon sleeping on windowsills or perched on bedposts or on nightstands, or under beds or at the feet of them, but some curl up under the covers together whenever they can.

In less poetic terms, daemons settling in fluffy, huggable forms because they and their humans have a deep-seated need to cuddle with each other is just as valid as daemons settling as birds because they need the freedom of flight.

This is often the case for children whose need for touch is not met properly by others, or those for whom it is too much, or it cannot be trusted. Parents, friends, and lovers aren’t always there, but they are always there for each other. But there’s not always trauma or neglect involved, and it’s not always people who have few or no close and intimate bounds outside themselves. Plenty of content, well-adjusted people still have relationships like this with their daemons because we’re human beings and touch is important to us, and it doesn’t really matter if you share a soul.