#the ones people write about the most even if said writing tends to be reductive. anyway

[utilitycaster]

Unpopular opinion: parts of the cr fandom are really dismissive/ reductive of Travis’s characters. It feels like it’s due to Travis being seen as THE cis het man of the group, and by extension his characters must be heteronormative and bad, despite the fact that you could have queer interpretations of his characters. At the very least, Travis’s characters explore masculinity and the different ways it might look. It’s like the people who are all “ew men are gross and shitty” and act like that’s an absolutely normal reaction to a man just existing.

So this is another one in that I agree with the initial statement, but I'm actually not sure re: the reasoning why. I think it's possible but I could not tell you for sure.

I used to, again, think this was people carrying through Campaign 1 elements well beyond the point where C1 had ended, and so Grog having an intelligence of 6 was being applied to Travis; and this definitely does come through to an extent when people treat Fjord (objectively as smart as Beau without her circlet) as stupid or act shocked that Chetney is the brains of Bells Hells or that he can play a Cerrit, Fjord, or Nathaniel. However, again, I think this is one of those opinions that pops up among people who weren't around for Campaign 1 (or early enough in C2 to be exposed to it regularly) so I don't know if that's the case anymore. It could still be - it could be that Approved Fandom Opinions get passed down even when the logic behind them has long since been lost; that's a really common thing in institutional memory. But I can't say for sure.

I also have in the past credited it to, as you said, people assuming his characters are the cishet guys and then writing them off. That's still possible - I've seen both Fjord and Chetney called "token straight" despite considerable evidence of bisexuality, and they also paradoxically are both commonly headcanoned as trans while still getting called "token straight," which sort of ties into a post I would need to find from someone else from quite some time ago about which cast members are granted agency by the fandom in their choices vs. which are assumed to be the victims of circumstance. And I do think that there are people in fandom who have decided men are icky or whatever, and I used to think this came from a place of bigotry and a slide towards t*rf ideology but I now do genuinely think it's just idiots who don't grant interiority to characters outside their own limited understanding.

But I think it's also useful to consider a few things, most of which I've brought up before:

Travis is extremely offline. He is not here to entertain your headcanons; he has been politely but openly dismissive of some (imo, really fucking dumb) fanon/fan theories. I think the cast frequently talks about how it's their table, and I think that's valid and correct, but Travis is one of the players who lives it the most. He is playing this game with his friends, and he'd like it to be a good story, but if you don't like it, he is not here to make you like it. I think that really fucks with the parasocial connections some people desire with the cast.

Travis's characters tend to examine masculinity as a performance but also the general performance of the self, and the fact that you cannot in the end control how you are perceived entirely, and I think that really unsettles people who have equated presentation with reality and are again, looking for external validation of the self.

Travis can play it big but he's often extremely subtle, especially with his more serious characters, and he's not as easily quotable out of context as some others at the table. I think because he is a lot more naturalistic than dramatic at times (Chetney notwithstanding) and isn't as pithy and quotable in his characters as many of Taliesin's PCs are, and a lot of the strength is in the delivery, he gets overlooked despite being very good with words on the fly.

And finally: this would be a whole post on its own but people are still very foolishly wed to this idea that pressing the big red button in D&D is Wild and Chaotic and haha Big ADHD Man when it's actually how you play D&D if you're not a coward; the button is where the story is stored, and a lot of Travis's strength is that he is extremely good at understanding what the GM wants and supporting it with sufficient grace that it's only visible if you know what you're fucking doing.

#answered #Anonymous #in the end although it's frustrating the fandom often sells him short #every gm is like this man is the greatest player i've ever had so who's really right in the end #anyway. watch candela chapter 2. #opinions rating ask meme

[lillified]

I remember you saying earlier (on twitter,not here) that the autobots were kind of boring,since they only fit into a few archetypes. I’ve kind of been thinking about that, and I thought they may also have been boring because of another thing: these few personality types means no one really bounces off eachother, and it doesn’t lead up to any interesting conflict.

This may only apply to G1,or I may just be talking nonsense, but compare them to the decepticons. The decepticons have a lot of different personalities , so they contrast against eachother and a lot of the times,disagree with eachother,creating conflict. However, with the autobots, the similar personality problem can come when no sort of conflict,even ones between certain characters,exists, and everyone has no sort of unique opinions towards eachother. And conflict,you know,makes up a lot for a story and characters.

A lot of people don’t care much about the autobot moments a lot, however you don’t really need to scour the internet to see videos and people posting about Megatron arguing with Starscream or skywarp getting clowned by rumble and frenzy, if you know what I mean.

hey!! wow, it is always surprising when people remember stuff I said lol

I’m admittedly just not really a big autobot fan (if I get the opportunity to write the autobots they’d be very messy) but I totally agree with you here—people seem to like the autobots, conceptually, for very different reasons than people like the Decepticons, and it factors into an interesting dichotomy between how different people view characters as a literary device.

while it isn’t a rule by any means, I’ve noticed there are a lot of people who love certain autobots, but specifically like them in isolation. the idea of the character is more important than anything they’ve actually done. pretty much every autobot that exists has a fan, but they could have little, if any, screen presence. this isn’t bad, of course! in many cases, it’s extremely novel and sweet. that being said, I’ve noticed that even the most prominent autobots have this happen—Optimus Prime is more of a symbol than a character, and that separation is a source of comfort.

This also happens with Decepticons, but I’d argue it’s to a lesser extent? They tend to have much more defined and consistent character relationships, arcs, and themes. The decepticons who are viewed in isolation most frequently would probably be Soundwave and Autobot Megatron, which is interesting (I am honestly not a fan of the modern characterizations of either of these, but I totally understand why people are!), in that their interactions, story purposes, and even personalities are flattened to separate them from the underlying narrative. People love the idea of Soundwave, but fail to give it a personality.

Once again, I don’t think any of this is bad! Moreover, isolating characters from the existing narrative and putting them in different places according to where they might better suit a story is a very good thing, actually. I’ve never agreed with the pushback for iterative/adaptive media altering existing characters’ traits or personalities to suit their thematic purpose, because I think it takes away the agency and undermines the vision of the artist. obviously you can dislike certain characterizations (I do that often) but blaming a deviation from the norm is extremely reductive. Trying to stick to an idealized checklist of how a character ought to act instead of recognizing them as a reactive, dynamic story device is how you end up with flat, unchanging characters and a boring story.

To tie that back to what I like about the decepticons, I think the fact that they are so messy is their strength—they aren’t all just different skins on the same archetype, they’re unique thematic elements which adapt and serve a function in the story. You can make them physically and even archetypally unrecognizable, but as long as you utilize them as elements in the story and afford them the conflict and complexity they deserve, it’s much more difficult to go wrong.

thanks for reading, and thank you for the question!! I hope this all makes sense—I wiped myself out last night and I’m still recovering, so I apologize if this was incoherent lol

#ask #transformers #text post #text

[excalibutt]

For the writing game, 7, 11, and 28!

Answering these in reverse because 7 is a long answer! 

28. Who is the most delightful character you’ve ever written? Why?

I think to date, the most delightful characters I have taken the time to write are always some version of the most disgusting and decrepit old crone I can conceptualize, and they always have some form of magical power. The earliest iteration of this character-type in my work was an early interpretation of Dame Ragnell from the Arthurian legends. She was such a fucking hoot to write. Mostly because she’s a shapeshifter, and she largely chooses to appear that way.  The most recent iteration of this smelly old crone appeared in one Pathologic AU I was working on where there was actually a gang of stern Babushka matriarchs in the Town on Gorkhon. So I conceptualized Artemy’s paternal grandmother. I called her Emee Burakh and she smoked a bone pipe, had whiskers, and quilted as a hobby, on top of being rumored to control the weather. I’d love to do so much more with her. Sigh. 

11. Do you believe in the old advice to “kill your darlings?” Are you a ruthless darling assassin? What happens to the darlings you murder? Do you have a darling graveyard? Do you grieve?

I am reluctant, in general, to kill my darlings. Thinking about death in general is not a very black-and-white thing for me, because I struggle also with spiritual faiths. I do try to romanticize the return to the earth or the reduction to ash, but... There’s still a pit of dread that sits high in my throat when I do.  I also really like the 2006 film Stranger than Fiction. The whole premise of that story is a famous tragedy author struggling to murder her main character, because by strange happenstance; he is real, and she struggles with the reality of what she’s set out to do, and he struggles with a whole new kind of mortality facing him. 

That being said, I like to do a lot of new things with the same characters, so even if they die; they aren’t dead forever. Just one aspect of them, returned to the ether, and born anew. That being said though; I am exhausted by characters constantly coming back from the dead. I hypocritically tend to judge, if an author can’t commit to the damn murder. 

7. What is your deepest joy about writing?

I... actually have a lot to say about this. I wrote a poem once years ago that encompasses much of how I feel about writing. In short, the very nature of it is magical. But if you want the longer version, it’s under the cut here. 

When you are a child, words are magic. 

Little sketched runes and curls all lines upon a page. 

Somehow—these markings become words, and they are words that stay. 

When you speak a word, it fills your ears and the world around you. Then it becomes a part of the air, and it is gone as soon as it came. 

But then there are strings of words. Phrases and sentences and entire paragraphs that fill the room and affect your soul. 

There are no physics that apply to words. Physics and math alike say that the volume of an object is only as big as its container. You can only pour so much water into a glass. If the glass overflows—it is not big enough to contain what is inside. 

But a sentence does not defer to something as petty as the laws of physics—and yet—it is just as real as a glass of water. 

“I love you” is one of the heaviest things you can possibly bring into a room, but its containing sentence is hardly more than three words long. In a single volume, an entire world can hide. A world full of people with lives and stories and families and villages, cities, love and war. Words do not obey the laws of physics. If science cannot dictate language, then is language not a form of magic? 

How can words not be sorcery?

 With just a string of carefully chosen words, a man in a suit can send a storm of fire and death upon a neighboring nation. With a curt, sudden command: I can summon the image of a polka-dotted rhinoceros into your mind. With a passing comment, I can make you feel sinking dread by pointing out the lettuce you’ve had stuck in your teeth all day.

How can words not be alchemy? Alchemy is the ancient art of transmuting lead into gold. You take basic elements and turn them into something better; far more valuable. Every book I have ever read is a formulaic combination of the same twenty-six  basic letters. The alphabet is not a story, but with words—I can transform them into a book that will touch the soul and wring tears. 

Look at the religious doctrines that governed mankind for a millenia. The power and justification for a thousand good deeds and a thousand atrocities all contained in a book. Still made of components that were so small, reshaped, repurposed, renewed, revered, rejected.

Words. 

Words are magic, and they are only molded by shifting, living, laws with ancient roots. 

Thousands of years ago, someone looked at a piece of loose shale, pointed, and said ‘Rock.’ And somehow, we all agreed that those four letters were the truth. 

Only a short matter of time ago, someone looked at you, and they whispered a name. And even now, when you hear it—it tugs on a part of your soul with hidden, ghostly fingers and a power that can’t be physical—and somehow you know that single word is the truth. 

Magic be the words; for they are what we are.

#ask game #my poems

[ramblingbrambles]

To new magic practitioners,

Remember that most spells are recipes, not formulas. A few spells may be chemistry (or a lot of your a chaos practitioner who moonlights as a chemistry teacher, lol) where you need to be precise and measure ingredients, and elements at specific times, and follow detailed notes, both literally and metaphorically (please be safe and research things thoroughly both magically and scientifically especially if it’s something you’re consuming), but most are cooking, that is to say, they are a work of art not a practice of science. It’s okay to eyeball measure and to have little spills (though big spills or mishaps may mean that it’s not time for that spell and that you need more time to prepare, energetically or through research), but most importantly, it’s about the blend, the melding of ingredients that work to magnify each other and to create the specific intent you’re looking for. Choose ingredients for their characteristics, not characteristics for your ingredients (it’s okay to do things that are simple, not to say that you have to get a bunch of fancy ingredients, just choose with intent). If two things pair together, mix them or join them before they are added to full mixture. (a personal favorite ward (of many, always have many and never tell anyone all of them, even people you trust) is to take an iron nail and fasten it to the non-reflective side to make a ward that protects you while reflecting any (undeserved, this one tends to backfire if you’re the one causing trouble) ill will back to its source). Not all of your spells will work, and anyone who tells you all theirs spells work is a liar. In the beginning, A LOT of your spells won’t work and that’s okay. You don’t start out amazing at cooking no matter how much research you do (granted I was like seven and my research was reading exactly one side of a label, but one of the first things I ever cooked was tater tots with allspice and garlic and rosemary. not awesome, I thought allspice meant for everything, reading the back would have saved me a tray of ruined tater tots). You will screw up and you’ll learn way more from that than your successes. It is called a practice, because it is something you practice; that also means it’s okay to go slow or to only dabble in. You don’t have to master everything you practice (though you’ll find a strong practice is more attainable than you’d think when you learn to ritualize aspects of your daily life to affirm yourself) Switch paths as often as you feel you need to, it’s like your major in college. There’s such a stigma around changing what you want to focus on, but that’s such a reductive view of humanity and our endless capacity for change. switching paths doesn’t necessarily mean you were wrong before; some things we hold with us as long as they serve us and part respectfully when it no longer does. You should always be growing and there is always more to learn. Science and witchcraft are two sides of the same coin, they work together to form our experiences. Do ancestor work, even if your ancestors were bad people, there are some in all of our histories and no one said all ancestor work is pleasant. Each generation carries both the power and strength of their lineage and the burden of what stains it. Fellow white practitioners, this means decolonizing yourself and your practice and working to be an active anti-racist. Ask yourself who you were before you were white attempt to reconnect with that culture. Don’t speak over marginalized voices, don’t steal from their practices, and don’t center yourself in things that aren’t for you. Learn to garden, write lots of journals, be cautious with entities, including other humans. Share your gifts and practice if it brings you joy, but don’t be afraid to keep your practice private if you prefer. Worry less on out should and more about could, there’s many solutions to most problems. That’s all for now, go be the beautiful shining lights you are! With love, ramblingbrambles

[doodlebeeberry]

What you said about writing tbh I feel that way a lot, and not just about the osc. Of course people read and discuss writing all the time, but I feel like in general, specifically on tumblr. It's so much harder for writing to get noticed. I think it's because consuming art is, I wouldn't necessarily say 'easier', but maybe less time consuming? Which is a shame. Looking at an image is less effort than reading through a fic.

And of course it's even more so when it comes to original characters/original writing. I feel like of all the times I've shared ocs, I get much more people interested when it's via art than with writing. And as someone who's way more of a writer than an artist, it can be a bit discouraging. I'd love for people to be interested in my characters and stories, but I don't really have the skill set to do it in the way people (I feel) seem to be the most interested in- which is visually.

I'm not sure how much this makes sense, but just some thoughts.

No no no, I absolutely get it! I was thinkin the same thing, actually—while I get that it’s a bit reductive to say you can get everything from a piece that quickly, you can generally look at art for a few seconds before you realize you like it, while writing, by its very nature, takes longer. When combined with how many social medias (twitter, instagram, tiktok, etc) really are more image-centric (and how I’d bet you anything that even sites with longer character limits have algorithms that don’t exactly favour writing), it can be hard for writing , particularly original writing, to find a larger audience outside of sites dedicated to it like, say, wattpad. This isn’t to say that these communities don’t exist, particularly if you count things like booktok/booktwit/etc which are their own can of worms, but most of those tend to be centered on physical print stories rather than digital ones, I find.

And yeah, it is absolutely amplified when posting original work instead of fan stuff. I don’t tend to mind much when it happens, but it does sting a bit when I’ve spent hours or days crafting a story only for some doodles I made in mapaint to beat it out in notes tenfold (tho, I do have to acknowledge that my habit of posting no-context middle-of-a-larger-project stories doesn’t help lol). It is discouraging, but it’s kinda just something you have to push through. Someone’ll take a shine to it eventually, even if it is just a small few ppl. That’s what I like to think anyway

#to some degree I like to think that just posting more n making folks see it will help fix the issue over time (if slowly) #a bit of a naive view but still one I choose to hold #also annon you can absolutely point me to your original writing. I’d love to read it (once it’s not 3am lol) #ask

[wodrueckts]

i’m actually kinda sad how acceptable it’s become in the fandom to hate on lou or at least to consider her character useless and annoying and that she shouldn’t have existed. and that is for the most part definitely due to the writing because it really didn’t do her any favours by involving her in a strange love triangle and basically pit her against the very easily likable and “uncontoversial” sascha (and let’s not even start about the robin of the hoods thing...) but i also think some people don’t really know how to take a character like her so she would’ve had a difficult time to get accepted either way. i mean people already said they don’t like her or don’t like her “vibes” or whatever in the first clip she appeared in when she had literally done nothing wrong yet. so of course something like robin of the hoods then is the perfect excuse to feel justified in the initial bias and not feel the need to examine why exactly they didn’t like her from the start. 

and i’ve seen people accuse others of fatphobia for not liking her and yeah, i think that can definitely be part of it but i feel like that’s also a bit too reductive of an explanation. i think a reason for the bias against her is also that generally there aren’t a lot of characters like her in media that aren’t complete stereotypes or made into jokes. and by “like her” i mean female characters who aren’t very traditionally feminine both in appearance and behavior. there certainly aren’t any other characters like her in druck or really any of the other skams. and the skams are shows that are predominantly about girls and yet we barely have any characters that break out of traditional femininity beyond some little quirks here and there. and even lou isn’t really super masc or anything. at least when it comes to the way she dresses, i mean she wears crop tops most of the time and wears make up and skirts sometimes.  but apart from her appearance she also doesn’t behave how women are traditionally supposed to behave and she certainly isn’t “ladylike”. she’s brash, unapologetic, outspoken, a bit abrasive, confident, tough (though she also has soft moments), stays true to herself and doesn’t bend to other people’s expectations of her and yeah, she’s also probably a bit obnoxious at times (but i mean, who isn’t). and of course every good feminist is gonna say that every woman has the right to behave like that and that those aren’t or shouldn’t be “unfeminine” qualities, but in praxis, turns out, people still tend to be a little uncomfortable with women or female fictional characters who behave like that. as seen with lou. and of course lou wasn’t perfect this season, she’s made mistakes and again, the writing often made her look even worse, but i still find the “hate” she got a bit disproportional to her actual actions. 

however, i’m not here to accuse everyone who doesn’t like lou - or anyone in general - of anything. i’m generally not in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn’t like. i guess i’m just sad that characters like lou still have to fight an uphill battle when it comes to viewer perception and often get dismissed before they’ve even done anything. and i’m also sad that the writing this season even exacerbated that instead of trying to combat it. 

and how all that led people to just completely disregard everything positive lou brought to the table. i mean, it seems like the consensus in the fandom by now is that her character was useless and didn’t add anything to the season and could’ve easily been replaced by any of the previously established characters. and honestly, i disagree. 

for one, simply the representation of a more gender non-conforming female character is a first for the skams but something that is sorely needed and i’ll honestly be really disappointed if lou just disappears after this season (though that is very likely) so we even lose that representation. 

and also her role in isi’s story was important, i think. unfortunately her impact, especially on isi’s gender journey, got kinda lost in the sauce due to the weak and wishy washy writing and how it was overshadowed by the whole love triangle drama. but i think isi meeting another person with a more untraditional gender expression was a great move and something that was needed and, again, i just wish the writing had been more effective in really establishing how she impacted that part of the story since ultimately it ended up being more tell than show, but in the end it WAS established that she was important for isi’s journey. so even if the writing of it wasn’t the best, doesn’t mean that that part of the story was useless or didn’t have any positive effect at all. and it definitely couldn’t have been fulfilled by any other preestablished character. 

and also just personally, despite the things that annoy me about her/how she was written, i do like lou as a character and what she brought to the show and i like her friendship with isi and i’ll be sad if we never get to see her again. 

#druck #not sure what this is #my lou apologist manifesto i guess

[shihalyfie]

I’ve been trying to separate spaces and mostly keep my irritated rants at weird takes I read on Twitter instead of here, because I’d rather this blog be a place for more diplomatic discussion, but this morning I had to read such an appallingly shocking take that I don’t think I can write my response in 280-character bits. The take was that Digimon Partners holding the Q&As for Ghost Game/Tamers and 02 are a farce because the staff members they’re hosting “weren’t that involved” in the series.

The staff members in question are Tamers director Kaizawa and 02 (and Adventure, among others) producer Seki.

Weren’t that involved?

I’ve had gripes for a while about how the fanbase tends to overplay Konaka’s hand in Tamers and Kakudou’s in Adventure/02 just because they’re the most vocal about their respective developments (and it is true they probably were the most instrumental in heading the backbones of their respective stories), but I can’t believe I just heard something that takes the fallacy of acting like they’re the only ones with any involvement at all to the point the other key staff members’ contributions are downright irrelevant. What?

This is especially a sheer level of double standard where Kakudou’s involvement in Adventure/02 is apparently considered important because he’s the director but clearly Kaizawa can’t have done much for Tamers because Konaka was there. It’s true that series like Frontier are generally more Kaizawa’s style, but going this far is frankly disrespectful. This wouldn’t even be the first time Kaizawa was called on to represent Tamers; he showed up as the Tamers representative for interviews from 2003 and 2010 and talked a lot about it in the DVD booklet (apparently Konaka was allowed to do as much as he did because Kaizawa gave him the freedom to do so). I’ve already written extensively about how much of Tamers is falsely attributed to Konaka when he himself openly credited much of it to the other writers on staff (and I’ve been writing about this since long before the infamous controversy last year, so it’s not necessarily to do with that, it’s just that a fallacy is still a fallacy). Even if Kaizawa allowed people under him to make more of the story decisions, I’d like to think he’s still at least fairly qualified to talk about Tamers production and what went on behind it, and he’s said himself that working on it made him super passionate about Digimon to the point he could go into Frontier with gusto.

Pretending Seki wasn’t that involved in 02 is also absurd because she’s literally responsible for its premise! She’s the one who saw a story about a boy skipping grades into university in the newspaper, had concerns about the boy’s social life and mental health, and had the story be about that as a result (she brings this up effectively any time she’s asked about how 02 came to be, and she personally claimed responsibility for the story getting much darker near the end as a result). She’s the one who infamously pushed for family life backgrounds and relationships, one of the most famous parts of Adventure and 02, to the point relatability is one of her trademarks (she’s the one responsible for them being in Tamers and Frontier too). She’s the one who supervised Kizuna scripting and corrected their lines if they went too out of character to the point it was said she came off as loving the kids like her own children. In fact, because her specialty is in researching social issues and how they affect real-life children in order to reflect it in her work, some very significant parts of 02 are closer to her than they are Kakudou (whose work was more in Digimon and Digital World worldbuilding and lore). Not only is it reductive to pretend she wasn’t influential in 02, it’s outright absurd because she’s one of the most important figures behind 02′s sheer existence and it being the way it is. So of course she’s one of the best people to ask about 02! And even Seki aside, Kakudou has also been very straightforward about what parts of Adventure/02 he was responsible for and what he didn’t, to the point 02 scriptwriters were encouraged to get anything they wanted in there to not have any regrets.

Even all of these citations aside, though, I don’t know what on earth could possess you to claim that the director and producer of Tamers and 02 respectively were supposedly not involved enough on their respective series to be able to speak about it in a Q&A session to the point it’s apparently a farce. You’d think knowing and remembering quite a bit about series production would be part of their job descriptions, no? Are we seriously that obsessed with claiming that an anime can only be made by one person in practice?

#digimon #digimon tamers #digimon adventure 02 #shiharant #I hope I don't have to use this tag too often

[gunkreads]

Alright! I’m home and I’ve got time to write a proper review of The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin.

Amazing book; get that out of the way first. I was absolutely glued to this thing the entire time. Going into this, you should understand something about my reading “style”: I tend to be really bad at solving mysteries, but fairly good at discerning the archetypes and tropes at play in a story. The Fifth Season was great for me in this regard, because the mystery at play was more about narrative functions than actual in-universe whodunit-ing.

If you’ve never read the book, I BEG you to stop reading right now, turn around, and don’t read anything about it until you read the book itself.

I’m going to try to do this spoiler-free, but I’ll put spoilers under the cut if they’re essential.

This book is, fundamentally, about change. A lot of books are; that’s not too significant in and of itself. The important factor is the extent of change’s importance. The world of the book is insanely seismically active; there are near-constant earthquakes and that’s a core component of the primary magic system. It’s split up into three separate plotlines, all of which slowly make their relations to each other clear throughout the course of the story. The triple-plotline thing was actually super refreshing because even if I’d been totally checked out and missed the connections between them, they served their purpose for worldbuilding. They definitely provide hints to the mysteries in each other, too, so you’re getting plot and stuff constantly. The book does not waste your time. Everything has at least two meanings.

Speaking of worldbuilding, this book is like... I hate to say it like this, because it’s super reductive, but it’s X-men. It’s the whole racism-against-superpowered-people thing. It’s insanely more nuanced, to be sure, and it’s certainly not derivative in a way that harms the story.

There’s some stuff about sex in the book that’s weird at first, but like I said two paragraphs ago, it’s got multiple narrative functions. There’s some serious #ThesePeopleAreOppressed content in this book and sex is one of the ways that’s illustrated. I think it works pretty well, personally, but my more prudish instincts made it feel icky and unnecessary until I figured out why it was there.

But man! The goddamn world! The premise. The premise of this book. Everything about the whole concept of the magic system and the way it’s related to the history of the world, that history itself, the way societies have evolved through the hectic world history... Man, it’s good. It’s just hard enough to be satisfying when you figure things out.

I think the main flaw I see in this book is that its degree of mystery could definitely be off-putting. Really perceptive readers might find the eventual explicit explanations tedious and patronizing, less perceptive readers might find them inadequate. I don’t want to give myself too much credit for figuring stuff out, so I’m going to assume I fell between those extremes, kind of on the less perceptive end. I know I missed some hints early on, but I definitely knew what was going on before the Big Reveals.

It’s really also a great example of this type of world I’ve been enjoying lately, where you’re kind of using hard magic that’s so thoroughly understood that it’s more like soft sci-fi. The magic system is just kind of... part of life. It’s not vague, it’s not that poorly understood, its function isn’t confusing, and most importantly, it grows throughout the book. This kept me engaged almost as much as anything else; watching the nature of the magic change as the story progressed was super cool.

I liked the book, obviously, and I’m planning to read the next two for sure. It’s crazy good. I’m really interested to see where the “higher” lore of the story goes, and how the triple-plotline thing will move forward since they’re largely resolved by the end of the book. The tagline of the book says that this story is how the world ends for the last time, and man do I wanna know how it happens.

#the broken earth #the fifth season #n.k. jemisin #fantasy

[ebaeschnbliah]

SHERLOCK’S  WEBSITE

‘Reading the document is the same as seeing the author’

This says a Chinese proverb (X). What does it mean then, when John tells Sherlock in A Scandal in Belgravia: ‘nobody is reading your website’?

SHERLOCK: I have a website. JOHN: In which you enumerate two hundred and forty different types of tobacco ash. Nobody’s reading your website.

Some more musings about Sherlock’s website ‘The Science of Deduction’ and its content below the cut ...

Just a little while later in the same episode - while he writes aboout the unsolved plane crash case in Düsseldorf ... ‘Sherlock Holmes baffled’ - John describes his own blog as Sherlock’s ‘living’.

JOHN: Look at that. One thousand, eight hundred and ninety-five. SHERLOCK: Sorry, what? JOHN: I re-set that counter last night. This blog has had nearly two thousand hits in the last eight hours. This is your living, Sherlock – not two hundred and forty different types of tobacco ash. SHERLOCK: Two hundred and forty-three.

‘This is your living’ is basically the same as ‘this is your life’. This is YOU. The way John describes Sherlock on his own blog, shapes how the public eye views the great detective. The same way as Dr Watson did in canon in his stories for The Strand. This fact becomes even more clear during the greenhouse scene in TAB. Although Dr Watson is aware that he doesn’t tell the truth about Holmes, he doesn’t change his stories about him either. 

HOLMES: .... as I have often explained before, all emotion is abhorrent to me. It is the grit in a sensitive instrument ... the crack in the lens. WATSON: Yes. HOLMES: Well, there you are, you see? I’ve said it all before. WATSON: No, I wrote all that. You’re quoting yourself from The Strand Magazine. HOLMES: Well, exactly. WATSON: No, those are my words, not yours! That is the version of you that I present to the public: the brain without a heart; the calculating machine. I write all of that, Holmes, and the readers lap it up, but I do not believe it.

If John’s statement ‘my blog is your living’ can be translated into ‘my blog is your life’ - my blog is YOU - what then can be said about John’s other comment, regarding Sherlock’s website ‘The Science of Deduction’, when he tells Sherlock: ‘nobody’s reading your website’? If the document, the blog, the website reflects the personality of the writer, the author and when nobody is reading Sherlock’s website because nobody is interested in its content ... doesn’t this translate into:  'nobody’s interested in who you really are’?  I assume one can indeed read it that way, because the plot confirms such a translation as well.

Oh, don’t worry. I know who you really are. I’m never off your website.  (THOB,  Dr Frankland)

If Dr Frankland knows who Sherlock really is, just by looking at his website - at Sherlock, the author -  maybe it would be a good idea to take a look as well. ... the same way Sherlock advices Kitty Riley in TRF: ‘Well, look at ME and tell me what you see ... you can just read what you need’. 

First of all, I’m not going to use the external internet website created for Sherlock BBC in this post. @possiblyimbiassed did already a detailed and very interesting analysis of it in ‘The Science of Reduction’. In the comments of that post I tried to exlpain the reasons for my doubts as to whether those external informations - as fascinating and tempting as they are - could lead to a solution for the story told on TV. Anyway, in this post I’m going to look at Sherlock’s website just as it is presented on screen. But what can be deduced about The Sciene of Deduction by using solely informations from TV? There’s not much to go on, one might say ... and as I’m no Sherlock Holmes either, I will most likely ‘miss almost everything of importance’, like John did with Carl’s shoes. But looking at Sherlock, the author, is definitely worth a try  ... :)))) 

The Science of Deduction

Sherlock’s website ‘The Science of Deduction’ can be seen already in the Unaired PILOT when he is about to answer requests from various people. The very first message he is just writing, is directed at his brother Mycroft who apparently contacted him in a somewhat ... ‘impossible situation’. Sherlock’s answer is a quote from canon, probably the most well known and often used statement of the great detective ... in canon as well as in many adaptations:

Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.  (The Sign of the Four)

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?  (The Sign of the Four)

It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  (The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet)

We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  (Adventure of the Bruce Partington Plans)

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. (Adventure of the Blanched Soldier)

Five more requests wait for Sherlock’s attention. His Inbox is indeed well filled ... at least six possible cases ...

Sherlock answers Gregson’s request about a ‘Church bell theft’. This done, he is clearly pleased about DI Lestrade’s not very informative message ‘Please call me’. When he is about to answer Jones request about ‘Samson and Del’, Mike Stamford and John Watson enter the room and Sherlock stops working through his Inbox. 

The next day Sherlock and John meet for the first time at Baker Street 221b. John mentions that he’d found Sherlock’s website the night prior but contrary to Sherlock’s big expectations, John isn’t much impressed (unlike Jeff Hope who thinks Sherlock’s Science of Deduction is brilliant). This scene happens in both versions - PILOT and ASIP - almost identically.

JOHN: Oh, I, um, looked you up on the internet last night. SHERLOCK: Anything interesting? JOHN: Found your website, The Science of Deduction. SHERLOCK: What did you think? JOHN: Quite amusing, I suppose. SHERLOCK: “Amusing”? JOHN: You said you could identify a software designer by his tie and – what was it? – a retired plumber by his left hand. SHERLOCK: Yes; and I can read your military career by your face and your leg, and your brother’s drinking habits by your mobile phone. JOHN: How? SHERLOCK: You read the article. JOHN: The article was absurd. SHERLOCK: But I know about his drinking habits. I even know that he left his wife.

Sherlock BBC, PILOT

One of the small and also strange differences between the two versions is the ‘identification’ text line from Sherlock’s website, quoted by John. In PILOT Sherlock refers to a plumber and his left hand and in ASIP to an airline pilot and his left thumb. “It is, of course, a trifle, but there is nothing so important as trifles” tells Holmes in The Man with the Twisted Lip and “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important” in A Case of Identity. A lot of such little, seemingly unnecessary modifications and inconsistencies can be found throughout this adaptation. Maybe they are indeed there for a reason?

JOHN: I looked you up on the internet last night. SHERLOCK: Anything interesting? JOHN: Found your website, The Science of Deduction. SHERLOCK: What did you think? JOHN: You said you could identify a software designer by his tie and an airline pilot by his left thumb. SHERLOCK: Yes; and I can read your military career in your face and your leg, and your brother’s drinking habits in your mobile phone. JOHN: How?

Sherlock BBC, ASIP

Why had the profession to be changed from plumber to airline pilot and the body part from hand to thumb, one wonders? Unless it’s because plumbers have to do with water and work down to earth or even underground. They install pipes/tubes or mend broken ones. By the way, in german language the phrase ‘install a pipe’ (ein Rohr verlegen) has the same meaning as the english ‘put up shelves’. Airline pilots on the other hand often tend to be situated high up above the clouds. Well, this sort of topic runs like a red thread throuout the whole story. And that strange change of profession isn’t the only ‘small’ modification from PILOT to ASIP either. 

(Strange little changes   Plumber musings)

Also interesting ... there are no visuals of Sherlock’s website in the official episodes ASIP and TBB. Only in the following episode, TGG, the viewer is able to take a first ‘official’ look at The Science of Deductions, when Sherlock writes his messages to the bomber. The look of his website has changed completely.

The Great Game: the first entry in the Forum is about Carl Powers shoes and botulinum toxin ... that’s the reason for food poisoning.  (Under the microscope)

Next time the website can be seen, is after Sherlock solved the second case and sends his congratulations regarding Ian Monford’s relocation to Columbia ...

And a third time when Sherlock has solved the murder of Conny Prince ...

There is no picture of Sherlock’s website connected to the fake Vermeer painting because this time Sherlock sends the solution not on his laptop but uses the pink phone dublicate instead (Yes, besides 2 Johns, 2 Faiths, 2 Charles, 2 serial killers, 2 empty houses, 2 flights of the dead, various pairs, doubles, twins ... etc, etc ... there are also 2 pink phones present in Sherlock BBC). Anyway, the Science of Deduction can be seen again when Sherlock suggests a meeting with the bomber at the same pool, where once little Carl died, to hand over the stolen missile defence plans ...

There’s no picture of Sherlock’s website in ASIB. The Science of Deduction turns up only in the two short but very interesting pieces of dialogue between John and Sherlock with which I started this post.

John utters the opinion that their clients come to Baker Street just because of his blog. Sherlock reminds him that he too has a website. John then mockingly mentions Sherlock’s analysis of 240 different types of tobacco ash on said website and adds ‘nobody is reading your website’. Sherlock is clearly offended and corrects the number of tobacco ashes from 240 to 243. Some time later John raises the tobacco-ash topic once more, proudly refers to his own blog - and the 1895 hits on it - and tells Sherlock ‘this is your living’.

The next visual presentation of the website can be seen in THOB, when Sherlock shows John the Inbox message of little Kirsty about her vanished, luminous rabbit Bluebell ...

In the same episode Sherlock tells Mrs Hudson that a ‘little blog on the identification of perfumes’ can be found on his website. It turns out that Sherlock hasn’t only extensive knowledge regarding ash, he also knows a lot about perfumes.  (Perfumes in Sherlock BBC by @gosherlocked ) 

The HOUND-episode is also the one in which Dr Frankland tells Sherlock: ’I know who you really are. I’m never off your website’. The Baskerville scientist knows John’s blog as well and is a bit confused that Sherlock isn’t wearing the deerstalker hat, as shown there.

The Science of Deductions turns up next in TRF, in an newspaper article about the recovery of Turner’s masterpiece, the ‘Falls of the Reichenbach’, that Sherlock was able to recover (last line on the left column).

Sherlock’s website is mentioned a last time in TSOT. Not on Sherlock’s laptop but on John’s phone. Mary suggests that John should go on a case with Sherlock. John opens The Science of Deduction on his own phone and asks Sherlock to pick a case from his already ‘bursting Inbox’. Sherlock chooses The Bloody Guardsman. Sadly it’s impossible to get a clear shot of the small mobile-screen. (John’s blog stops at TSOT by @gosherlocked)

THE LOOK

Blue is the main colour Sherlock has chosen for his website ... shades of different blue ... a dark midnight blue and the skyline of a city by night can be dimly seen in the background and - a little bit clearer - on both sides. 

As Sherlock Holmes is one of London’s most popular characters, it’s easy to assume that the skyline used for his website is that of GBs capital. With this in mind, the water in the bottom right corner, that can be seen rather good on the first pic above, should be the Thames and the shallow arch above it, most likely one of its many bridges. On the opposite site, in the upper left corner, next to the small, pale tower and right behind the ‘The’ of the website’s headline, the vast vault of Saint Paul’s Cathedral can be dimly seen (the view is better on a TV screen). 

If one connects the images of river and bridge on the left with St Paul’s on the right, I guess the background of Sherlock’s website could be a panorama photo similar to the one below. That’s a view from the Southbank of the Thames with Blackfriars Bridge in the foreground. And this location does play a role in the story ....

Blackfriars Bridge is located between Southwark Bridge and Waterloo Bridge. The name derives from Black Freres ... the French 'frère' meaning 'brother'. This referes to the black habits of the Dominican monks. A monk is also called a brother, a nun is also called a sister and the opposite of a ‘black brother’ would be a (ghostly) ‘white sister’. Just saying. :) 

(The Roads we walk   Vatican Cameos   A Christmas Tale)

As mentioned above, this particular cityscape plays a role in Sherlock BBC. It’s a crime scene from TGG. 

SHERLOCK: View of the Thames. South Bank – somewhere between Southwark Bridge and Waterloo.

At this place, Alex Woodbridge was found, the security guard and hobby stargazer, killed by the Golem, in the Vermeer case ... the same case which doesn’t turn up in the messages on Sherlock’s website because he uses the pink phone and conveys the solution verbally. Viewed metaphorically ... he speaks through the heart.

Blue is the colour of the sky ... high up, where the aeroplanes fly. Blue is also the colour of the water, deep down below ... where powerful emotions run freely and London is Sherlock’s city. The country, the city, the houses, even cars are closely linked to the famous detective. They seem to represent his ‘body’. 

Just put me back in London. I need to get to know the place again, breathe it in – feel every quiver of its beating heart.  (Sherlock, TEH)

Brother Mycroft IS government and ‘queen’ at the same time. There are all kinds of networks above and below ground and steam trains run behind fake facades. Saint Paul’s Cathedral and the river Thames are often special eye-catcher. The coat of arms ... with dragon, lion and Saint George’s cross ... make their appearance as well as the great fire of London in 1666, the Isle of Dogs and the Greenwich pips. ‘Transport’ goes from standstill to movement ....

666-The number of the beast   Every quiver of his beating heart   Saint Paul’s Cathedral   Still at the centre of the web   From standstill to movement 

WEBSITE ... A SITE FOR THE WEB

Sherlock has a website .... John has a blog. Why the difference? Both men, Sherlock and John, are given strongly internet-related nicknames ... Hat-man and Robin:The web detectives ... Sherlock & John: Blogger Detectives. Sherlock is also called ‘Net Tec’ and ‘net phenomenon’. What’s the difference between Blog and Website:

BLOG:  The word ‘blog’ is short for ‘weblog’ (web=net + log=logbook), jokingly broken into the phrase ‘we blog’. A blog is a discussion or informational website published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete, often informal diary-style text entries. Posts are typically displayed in reverse chronological order, so that the most recent post appears first, at the top of the web page. 'Blog' and 'blogging' are now loosely used for content creation and sharing on social media, especially when the content is long-form and one creates and shares content on regular basis. (X)

WEBSITE:   The word website consists of web=net + site=place. Literally web-site means ‘a place in the net’. A website can be used in various fashions: a personal website, a corporate website for a company, a government website, an organization website, etc. Websites can be the work of an individual, a business or other organization, and are typically dedicated to a particular topic or purpose. All publicly accessible websites collectively constitute the World Wide Web. (X)

Of course, the word ‘web’ immediately reminds me of Jim Moriarty. The spider at the centre of a criminal web, woven with thousands of threads and Jim knows precisely how each and every single one of them dances. Sherlock is going to monitor the underworld in order to notice every quiver of that web, so he will notice when the spider makes his move. 

As mentioned above, all kinds of networks - above and below ground - play a major role in Sherlock BBC. There are Mycroft’s people, his agents and spies. There are terrorists who threaten London with a massive attack. General Shan has a vast network with thousands of operatives and Sherlock calls it ‘a cult’. A surveillance web is closing in on Baker Street, their attention focussed on Sherlock. An Underground network as well as an underground network runs below the surface of the big city. A secret cult of revenging birdes meets in the crypt of a desanctified church. Sherlock is convinced that the ‘world is woven from billions of lives, every strand crossing every other. What we call premonition is just movement of the web. If you could attenuate to every strand of quivering data, the future would be entirely calculable, as inevitable as mathematics’. So many threads - linked and interwoven - they create a web, a net .... a web-net. Basically, that’s exactly how brains work as well. Every brain is a very vast and highly functional biological network ... and Sherlock’s is faster than most ‘... still catching up with my brain. It’s terribly fast’.

Recent models in modern neuroscience treat the brain as a biological computer, very different in mechanism from an electronic computer, but similar in the sense that it acquires information from the surrounding world, stores it, and processes it in a variety of ways. Neurons typically communicate with one another by means of long fibers, which carry trains of signal pulses to distant parts of the brain or body. (X)

And then there's also Sherlock’s ‘own’ network ... the ‘homeless network’ it is called. According to Sherlock, it is ‘indispensible and faster than the police’. Those group of people is based on the Baker Street Irregulars from canon. There, in Victorian London, they are street boys, sometimes employed by Holmes to run errands for him. Holmes speaks of them as ‘division of the detecitve police force’. Dr Watson describes them as ‘little scoundrels’ and ‘half a dozen of the dirtiest and most ragged street Arabs that ever I clapped eyes on’. 

While the idea of homeless people who sometimes assist Sherlock in his cases is taken from canon, the name - homeless network - is not. Names are always important in this story. So basically, what is a homless network? It is a network that has no home. At times it is usefull for Sherlock and he pays them for their help. In a way this reminds me of Eurus. She says abut herself: 'to remember everything one just needs a big enough hard drive’. Her intellectual abilities are also of occasional use for the government. In return she requires treats. Similar to Sherlock’s homeless network, Eurus has no home either. She lost it long ago in her childhood days. Sherlock has a website ... a site, a place in the web ... but only very few people are interested in it. Actually just Jeff Hope and Dr Frankland as it seems. Sherlock has a homless network ... a network without a home. 

The women of the ‘cult’ from TAB first gave me the idea that all those dangerous groups ... agents, spies, terrorists and the various networks ... could actually be metaphors for something that happens inside Sherlock’s mind. That all those groups represent the awakening of emotional stirrings ... desires, fears, impulses ... that haunt the great detective. There seem to be aspects of Sherlock’s personality which he views as rightous criminal and puts them behind padded walls or elephant glass. Others are just annoying and distracting. Some he ignores most of the time because he considers them to be irrelevant for his system. Some have no home, although they turn out to be usefull now and then. Then something unexpected happens ... something new is coming ... and this marks the beginning of a change of perception in Sherlock Holmes, maybe a revolution.

The reptile in 221b   Underground networks    AGRA-Under the sign of four   Eurus, the emotional memory & The cold war by @raggedyblue

FOUR MESSAGES and a GAP 

Four messages can be read on Sherlock’s website. All of them are from TGG, related to four of the five cases, written by Sherlock and directed at ‘the bomber’. As it turns out at the end of the episode, this person is none other than Jim Moriarty, the spider in the centre of the web. 

FOUND. Pair of trainers belonging to Carl Powers (1978-1989). Botulinum toxin still present. Apply 221b Baker St.

Congratulations to Ian Monkford on his relocation to Columbia.

Raoul de Santos, the house-boy, botox.

xxx

Found. The Bruce-Partington plans. Please collect. The Pool. Midnight.

Only one of the cold cases is not mentioned on Sherlock’s website, because Sherlock uses the pink phone duplicate, sent to him by the bomber in a strong box at the beginning of the ‘great game’, to submit his message. Sometimes it is useful to ‘mind the gap’ as Sherlock says. Sometimes that, what is left out, is just as important as that, what is there. The ‘gap-case’ is the one about the fake Vermeer painting, whose forgery was first noticed by security guard and hobby stargazer Alex Woodbridge, murdered because of it by the Golem. His body was found at the Southbank of the Thames near Blackfriars Bridge ... the same location Sherlock uses as background for his website. Sherlock discovers and proves the truth due to the display of an impossible supernova on the painting. 

A picture pretends to show a scene from the past, but the massive explosion painted on it reveals, that the picture has actually been created much more recently. That massive explosion had never happened in the past.

The bomber’s hostage in the Vermeer case is a kid who is never shown on screen. The little boy transmittes a countdown from 10 to 1, that mirrors Sherlock’s own countdown in TFP (Countdown) while the boy’s plea for help mirrors that of the girl on the plane and also that of Victor Trevor, the boy in the well near Musgrave Hall. Victor Trevor and Musgrave Hall represent two canon stories -  The Adventure of the Gloria Scott and The Musgrave Ritual - both set in Sherlock Holmes’ university time, long before he met Dr Watson. Both cases lead back to a time ‘where Sherlock began’.

(Why Victor Trevor was turned into a child by @sagestreet)

THE HOUND & THE GUARDSMEN

Little Kirsty Stapleton’s cry for help in THOB to ‘please, please, please’ find Bluebell, her vanished, luminous rabbit, marks the beginning of the HOUND case. Chemistry, triggered by the pressure of feet, fills the air and drives everyone exposed to it, crazy. Love is in the air .... At the end Jim Moriarty (Mr Sex) walks free, released from his cell by Mycroft Holmes himself ... 

Private Stephen Bainbridge’s request in TSOT, regarding a mysterious stalker, marks the beginning of the GUARDSMEN case. Jonathan Small (literally: Jonny Little), a brilliant, ruthless monomaniac (who strongly reminds me of Jim Moriarty), stabbs guardians/facades with a ‘meat dagger’. At the end Mary Watson is pregnant ... ‘stabbed’ by ‘Johnny boy’ (Hamish=James) Watson ... the HOUND hidden behind the facade of the facade .... Matroshka ‘poppets’ indeed.

“Mary – lots of love ... poppet ... oodles of love and heaps of good wishes from CAM.”  (Telegram from Magnussen, keeper of the deepest and darkest secrets and scandals,TSOT)

THE BLUEBELL COMPANIONS

Alongside little Kirsty’s message about Bluebell there appear two more requests on the Inbox page of Sherlock’s website (they can be easily read on TV screen). In films neiter images and certainly not texts appear on screen out of coincidence. Pictures are there for certain reasons, even if it’s just for the purpose of a fitting decoration. Texts on the other hand are much more specific. Someone must have had the idea to put it there and someone had to create the image. Especially the makers of Sherlock BBC have repeatedly mentioned that everything that appears on screen has its meaning. With this in mind, what can be deduced about those two earlier requests in Sherlock’s Inbox?

1- Please help victims of China earthquake. It costs just 5p. 

China - right from the beginning a certain ‘easterly’ theme appears and runs from there throughout the whole story like a red ribbon until the moment the Eastwind finally approaches in the shape of Eurus. In a metaphorical reading I connect the East to emotions and memory. 

An earthquake is a sudden outburst of held back and bottled-up energie. When the pressure gets too high it results in a violent release of that energy. Explosions .... rocks crack, the earth shakes. Earthquakes can trigger landslides, volcanic activity or cause a tsunami. Major changes are also often referred to as ‘earthquakes’.

Costs of 5p ... A penny (p) is a coin and a unit of the britisch pound (£), the official currency in the UK (a currency Sherlock doesn’t know how to spend?). 5p is money. The saying goes that time is money. A minute is a unit of time. Viewing it in reversed order ... money is time = 5 penny are 5 minutes. ‘It took her (Eurus) just five minutes to do all of this to us.’

Reading it that way, a possible translation of the first request in Sherlock’s Inbox could be:  “Please help victims of emotional upheaval. It takes just 5 minutes.”  :)

2- Re. Mudchute Query

Mudchute is a railway station situated in the Millwall area on the Isle of Dogs. The name Millwall has its source in the large number of windmills built on the river wall in the 19th century. They were needed to ground corn and wheat into flour that was brought along the Thames. The original station was located on an old Victorian railway line that had been disused for many years. An elevated station opened 1987. When the line was extended under the Thames, the station was rebuilt close to the tunnel entrance. It opened 1999 and was finally completed 2009. The station was originally intended to be named Millwall Park but then renamed in Mudchute, refering to the engineering overspill when Millwall Dock was being created in the 1840s. (X)

Basically ... the second request in Sherlock’s Inbox is about a query regarding a railway station, built in the Victorian area at a place linked to mills (♪ Remember the maid ... the maid of the mill ...♪, TAB), disused for years, rebuilt and elevated, named, renamed ... until it was completed in 2009, the same year the Unaired Pilot was created. Well .... that sounds a bit ... familiar?

PERFUME AND TOBACCO ASHES

Appart from Sherlock’s cold case messages addressed to Jim Moriarty and two requests from - Kirsty Stapleton and Stephen Bainbridge - there are only two other entries on The Science of Deduction ... Sherlock’s own analysis about perfumes and tobacco ashes. Basically that’s about ... scent/smell and fire residues.

SCENT:  From Kasbah Nights to Claire de la Lune, perfumes play a significant role in this story and Sherlock is a true expert in smellig and recognizing the different brands. The first thing that comes to mind, related to the word ‘scent’ is a dog - more precisely a scent dog. One of the most prominent representatives of that breed is the Bloodhound. And it is well known that Sherlock Holmes is indeed compared to a blood hound in ACDs The Sign of Four. That same quote has been adopted in TEH (Sherlock the Bloodhound), it appears on John’s Blog and is read by Mary. But in Sherlock BBC the bloodhound isn’t only linked to Sherlock himself. The HOUND is also connected to John Watson, Jim Moriarty, Victor Trevor, Eurus and Redbeard the Irish Setter, also a scent dog.  

(The dogs in Sherlock’s mind palace  The bloodhound in his hands   Transformation of Redbeard  and the ‘Follow the dog’ series by @sagestreet​)

FIRE RESIDUES:  Sherlock has an extensive knowledge regarding tobacco ashes. This characteristic has also been taken from canon.

I have made a special study of cigar ashes—in fact, I have written a monograph upon the subject. I flatter myself that I can distinguish at a glance the ash of any known brand, either of cigar or of tobacco.  (ACD, A Study in Scarlet)

In TSOT drunken Sherlock proclaims loudly ‘Ash! I know ash!’  Almost the same words (‘I know human ash’) uses the guy from ASIB, whose aunt had been among the plane crash victims in Düsseldorf (’Sherlock Holmes baffled’). In the same episode Sherlock steals an ashtray from Buckingham Palace. In TEH Sherlock’s return from hiatus is underlined with at least half a dozen scetches of phoenixes, rising from the ashes, at the walls of the Landmark Restaurant. Another bird that has great resemblance with a phoenix can be found on Brenda’s gravestone at Musgrave Hall  (Among the funny gravestones).

Ash is the residue of a fire damage. Fire and burning is one of the main themes in Sherlock BBC. From Jim’s threat to burn Sherlock’s heart out to the gingerbread man burned to a crisp, from John’s Guy Fawkes bonfire to Sherlock’s admission ‘I’m burning up’, from the Baker Street living room in flames to the great fire at Musgrave Hall ... not to mention all the exploding or not quite expoding bombs throughout the show ... fire anf burning is never far away in this story.  

(Love is a burning thing   A case ablaze   Set this house on fire by @gosherlocked)

TOBACCO ASHES ... CHEMISTRY BURNED

Tobacco s the common name for plants belonging to the Nicotiana family. It contains the highly addictive stimulant nicotine. The dried leaves of the plant are mainly used for smoking in cigars, cigarettes, pipes, etc ... Nicotine is a widely used legal drug. The burning of tobacco results in smoke and the residue left behind is ash. Sherlock knows ash. Interestingly and unlike to canon, in this modern adaptation Sherlock doesn’t simply know ‘any known brand of cigar or tobacco ash’, he has analysed exactly 243 different types of those ashes and he explicitly corrects the number 240, cited by John. Is this seemingly unimportant correction just there to emphasise Sherlock’s annoyance over John’s mockery or is maybe another meaning hidden behind that corrected number?

243 ... ‘This is your living, Sherlock – not two hundred and forty different types of tobacco ash’ - ‘243!′

243 different types of tobacco ash are not Sherlock’s living. 243 different, tobacco products - burnt to ashes - are not Sherlock’s life.

As mentioned above, tobacco contains nicotine and nicotine is a drug. Viewing Sherlock BBC on a metaphorical level ... all drugs are chemistry and chemistry is love. The chemistry of love, burnt to ashes ... 243 times over. Hmmmm ....  Then an idea hit me and I asked Google a question:

This answer is from January 2020. The first official series of Sherlock BBC aired 2010 and the Unaired Pilot has been produced in 2009. I seem to recall that the first and the second series have been accepted by the BBC at the same time and since 2009 several more Sherlock Holmes adaptations have seen the light of day (Guy Ritchie Holmes, Elementary, New Russian Holmes, Miss Sherlock, Mr Holmes, Sherlock Gnomes, Holmes&Watson, Enola Holmes ... to name just a few). 

Could it be that the number of different tobacco ashes, analysed by Sherlock, mirrors the number of different adaptations about the famous detective? Sherlock Holmes ... reborn again and again with each adaptation, like a phoenix from the ashes, and yet he was never able to live a full life ... including emotions, love and sex?

‘All lives end. All hearts are broken’, that’s what Mycroft tells Sherlock in ASIB. Chemistry burned to ashes in an endless row. ‘So many days not lived, so many words unsaid’ ... says Eurus in TFP and referes to the coffin whose lid is adorned with a brass plate, I LOVE YOU, written on it  (A coffin for love). You are absolutely right  @loveismyrevolution with your idea of Sherlock standing between two ‘angels’ in that scene, although I would rather call them ‘choices’. Because this scene has great resemblance with the three solutions/choices Sherlock has to choose from after the event on Barth’s roof  (Solutions or choices). 

At that time Sherlock is confronted with two elemental forces ... love and sex. The one is represented by Molly (mirror for John) and the other one by Jim Moriarty, Mr Sex. Sherlock chooses neither one of the two. He backs away and walks a third path. He decides to live a celibate life - married to work - solely dedicated to reason and intellect, represented by Mycroft. That’s why he needs to create a strong facade to hide his true feelings for John. But then, unexpected and without noticing it at first (delayed action stabbing), even this facade gets ‘penetrated’ by John. Love (Rosie) is conceived and this changes everything. (Changing of the guard)

After the first shock (shot), Sherlock starts to go deeper into himself than ever before. He repeats the investigations about himself (the pink case) from a different perspective. Everything that happens in S4 reflects, in one way or another, occurances from S1-S3 ... arranged differently and some new actors are added. For example: the morgue-scene in TLD is a mirror of Sherlock’s fall in TRF ... it’s another Reichenbach. Eurus’ five tasks of Sherrinford seem to be a sort of ‘final distillate’ of Sherlock’s repeated analysis. In the coffin-scene Sherlock is once more confronted with a choice. This time though SEX is excluded. Sherlock has to choose between LOVE or BRAIN. And just as he did after the ‘first’ Reichenbach, Sherlock tries again to back away. At that stage though Eurus doesn’t let him. Sherlock’s emotions force him to go back to the very beginning, to find the truth. What that truth is and what consequences will come from it .... is still untold in this story, as I read it. There’s a final distillation but not a final solution at the end of S4.

“This is your living, Sherlock ... not 243 different types of tobacco ash” 

... says John, refering to his own Blog. But is this really the truth? The counter on John’s Blog stops at 1895 in ASIB and the text entry, read by Mary in TEH, is a quote from canon. Already in the first series, in TBB, Sherlock asks John - his blogger/biographer - to pass him the pen and near the end of S4, in TLD, John’s Blog has ‘gone a bit downhill’ and people actually think it's Sherlock’s Blog. This leaves the question: is Sherlock taking over the narrative of his own story now? What kind of story will it be? How will it end? Will Sherlock have to make a third choice in the future? A choice between Dr Watson, the ‘fixed point in a changing age’ and John Watson, who could be so much more than just an ‘eternal’ friend? After all, there are two Faiths in the story, two serial killers and Hamish (Jim, Mr Sex) hides right in the middle of John (H) Watson ... at the very centre of the web, one might say. 

Two times John    Pairs-Twins-DoubleOHs   Double OH seven Bond Air is go   The big question   and an excellent explanation of the idea about ‘Two-John’s’ in the comments on this post by @lukessense

Will Sherlock BBC turn out to be one more adaptation that ends as a ‘missed oportunity’ ... one more chemistry burned to ashes .... another sample of tobacco ash for Sherlock to analyse and add to his list? Or will it be different this time? Something new ... something big? Will it be the story about the emotional and sexual awakening of the literary character Sherlock Holmes? 

Only the future will tell ....

Thanks for reading and thanks @callie-ariane for the scripts.

February, 2021

#sherlock bbc #the science of deduction #sherlock's website #reading the document is seeing the author #nobody is reading your website #nobody is interested in who you really are #this is your living #this is your life #messages #inbox #analyses #tobacco #perfume

[utilitycaster]

You Write Angst Not Tragedies

This might be my most “what if this trend in fandom preferences in story and meta is the sign of larger issues within fandom qua fandom” writing yet but I think it’s worth talking about. Also many thanks to everyone who said they wanted to hear this rant; I was going to probably do it anyway but this lit the proverbial fire under my ass.

There’s a marked preference in much of fandom for angst over tragedy, and while the way we all deal with negative emotions is complicated and personal and what one does in fanfic and headcanon is one’s own concern, I think in terms of story and meta, an overabundance of angst lessens the impact of tragedy.

To define the two as I’m using it: tragedy is about things going wrong in a way that causes emotional pain, and how it affects the characters (and audience).

Angst is, at its best (and it does have a purpose) about exploring those negative feelings, but at its worth, in squeezing sadness from minor or at times nonexistent details to the detriment of the larger story.

A tragedy is a story - either in the classic theatrical sense of a story that ends with death and failure, or in a more modern sense in which those things occur within the context of a larger narrative. Angst is a tiny piece of that, often taken out of context. It’s a few points of a much larger arc, again at its best.

I find that angst isn’t quite the same as baseless theories, but they occupy a similar place in my mind; they’re both for people who want raw emotion over plot or reality, and often for people who I think want to feel they’ve tapped into something special and hidden when in fact there was nothing in particular waiting for them beneath the surface.

I think the best example is character death. The immediate response of others is often full of angst, with intense, acute grief, and anger, and all sorts of messy emotions, and spending time in that space with the affected characters is I think very healthy! The problem is that people don’t want to move forward from there, and in extreme cases they also wanted the emotion without the death.

The problem is grief is a long and complicated process and it often doesn’t look pretty or even necessarily relatable. Sometimes it looks like people very slowly going down a dangerous or harmful route, or pushing others away in a manner that doesn’t end with a hug and a therapist-approved conversation about needing to express yourself, or just...nothingness. And sometimes it looks like being pretty much fine most of the time except for very weird and specific things, and often those weird and specific things aren’t poetic or poignant at all and are even faintly ridiculous or offensive.

And I think those stories are important to tell and I think that actually, a decent amount of fantasy, and especially something as long-running as D&D campaigns, is well-suited to tell them. But the responses to those long and weird and at times uncomfortable stories is often very reductive - criticizing the characters going through grief in a realistic way, or criticizing the storyteller(s), or wanting the pain but no lasting consequences nor complications.

I would say the disproportionate focus on lifespan angst is perhaps the purest form of it that I see. By its very nature lifespan angst takes place when the story is ended. There are no consequences, no canonical messiness. However, it also assumes the characters freeze where they are; that someone who knows they will outlive a partner or friend by centuries never makes others. It is stagnation. It is a refusal to allow the story to move forward when unobserved. It is another empty vessel on which to project whatever you want without having to consider the actual tragedy that led to the angst. It’s results with no work. It’s lazy and uninspiring.

It’s not limited to grief, though, and the other way in which it annoys me is the oddly mercenary, in a way, mining of angst from nothing. In this case it often builds on known tragedies - even sources of angst - but adds unnecessary detail that often detracts from the story. The trend that sticks out to me the most is people adding physical or further emotionally abusive details to the histories of characters with neglect, which tends to have the unfortunate implication that neglect doesn’t ‘count’ to the same extent. The same sort of thing occurs with most examples of this form of angst - it takes something that is already in itself painful or tragic and then unnecessarily embellishes it, with the underlying attitude of “no, that wasn’t enough,” and often with additional strains to credibility that throw me so far out of the story I’m just looking at it going “this is what you want?”

In short: some angst is fine, and it’s an entire subtype of fanfiction for a reason, but the focus on angst is so frequently coupled with an inability to handle any true tragedy in the narrative, which strikes me as childish and dull.

#on fandom #on actual play #also i refrained from examples but like. i have them.

[work-of-waking-up]

In Defense of the Psychopath

Alright, wanna venture into my crazy ass brain? I’m going to start by saying one thing that will set the tone for everything else that follows: Villanelle is not a psychopath in the way that we currently understand them. Why am I even bothering to write about a fictional character, you ask? Because representation is important. Media portrayal of various mental and behavioral health topics (including ones that people might not think need to be discussed) is important and this show has a big audience. I also just want to contribute to the conversations that are taking place because I am seeing A LOT of them and the reason for that I believe boils down to the fact that Jodie makes Villanelle so relatable and people want to know what that means and looks like for them. Even those who felt they could relate to Sandra’s Eve, or the relationship between the two, maybe questioned what that meant the further they went down the path with them. “It’s probably a bad thing I relate to a psychopath, right? But she can’t be a psychopath because she cries and she feels things! Psychopaths don’t cry, which means she isn’t realistic so therefore it’s okay that I relate to her! Right? Or are my assumptions about psychopaths and people with antisocial personality disorder wrong? I relate to Eve but look what she is underneath it all...so does that mean I relate to that part of her too?” Not only is villanelles character relatable, but people see the freedom inherent within her, the freedom that Eve sees, and they realize that, at least on some level, they want it too. The show has (unintentionally I think) created a massive dialogue which is super cool and you can tell everyone involved on the show is aware of that now, I mean they have a consulting psychiatrist so I think that speaks for itself. This is less of a commentary on the character herself and whether or not she is a genuine psychopath, and more so a commentary on the conversations she has inspired and why... For the record, this is literally just my opinion sprinkled with a few facts, nothing else.

So, the term psychopath gets thrown around in the show, more so in the beginning, MI6 explicitly labels Villanelle this way, even going so far as to use her in a presentation about psychopaths, although I think that was more so to gauge Eve’s response than anything else. The reality of Villanelle, which we come to learn, is that nobody has been able to get close enough to really know the truth. Anna and Konstantin both got close but we never hear either of them use that word (Konstantin says it once but he clearly doesn’t mean it, it was more of an attempted manipulation tactic). They make it clear that she has, and can, and WILL cause damage, but that’s as far as they go. Eve is getting close and she tells Villanelle when they first meet that she knows Villanelle is a psychopath but it’s obvious from Eve's behavior and things she says later on that she truly doesn’t believe Villanelle is what everyone says she is. It’s easier to label her as a psychopath because that alienates and isolates her and her behavior completely. She is an outlier with behavioral anomalies and therefore it isn’t necessary to look any closer. For MI6 and others (not talking about the shows creators) to label Villanelle as a psychopath is easy, it’s lazy, it’s reductive, it serves a single purpose... a means to an end. They (anyone other than Eve basically) simply do not care about Villanelle’s truth. But as an audience we are lucky enough to see more of her with each episode. The psychopath label begins to fade and Oksana is what’s left. We know based on what she has said that she is aware that people think she is a psychopath, a monster, a person built to kill. It’s not always easy to decide that who you are is different from who you’ve always been told you are, especially given her history. Villanelle hasn’t told us yet if she thinks (or knows) that she is a psychopath, but it’s clear towards the end of last season that she no longer wants to be the person that they (meaning the twelve, Dasha, Konstantin, etc.) created. We see moments where she clearly has no remorse and clearly enjoys what she does, but then we have little moments sprinkled in between where she very obviously struggles, even if its short lived. And those moments are important. We have the moment where she struggles with the choice to shoot Konstantin, saying he is a good person, she thinks. This comes shortly after a conversation she had where Irina tells Villanelle she thinks she is a good person because she is sad, so we know she is thinking about it, we know the awareness is there, and it becomes more and more there as times goes on. I like to think of it in terms of having moments that are pure Villanelle (ie the way she killed Inga in the Russian prison), and then we have moments that are Oksana, vulnerable and emotional. Villanelle is a creation and a mask whereas oksana is the truth. Those moments are starting to really mean something. I'm not even going to start with her trip to find her family, that’s its own thing, but it's a Really Big Thing.

So. Villanelle is not a psychopath in the way that we currently understand and perceive them. Yes, she displays psychopathic traits, and yes, she absolutely has antisocial personality disorder. I read an article where the psychiatric consultant for the show (makes it pretty obvious how hard they worked to make Villanelle as realistic as possible) said that the Villanelle in Luke Jenning’s books scored a 32 on Hare’s psychiatric checklist, but I like to think (and I think a lot of people would agree) that number is a bit high, at least for Jodie’s Villanelle, maybe not even hitting 30 at all (close though, let’s be real lol). The max score is 40 which would be a fully blown primary psychopath. For reference, Ted Bundy scored 39. This checklist is flawed though, mostly created and based off the prison population. Which is why it isn’t used as a proper diagnostic tool. 32 is apparently extraordinarily high for a female (think Aileen Wuornos), which brings me to my next point which is that because it’s hard to measure a lot of the classic traits objectively, there is not a ton of solid data surrounding psychopathy, and even less of it is on female psychopaths. Like most things in life, psychopathy exists on a spectrum, there are levels and layers. It’s not black and white, there’s no definitive test (psychopathy isn’t even in the DSM-5 because as I said earlier it’s extremely hard to measure objectively) and it's important to distinguish between someone who exhibits psychopathic traits and someone who is actually an identifiable psychopath. Chances are high that someone you know displays at least one characteristic shared with psychopaths and this doesn’t make them one.

I think what’s important about this is that mental disorders (mental illness/personality disorders/etc.) of any kind are much more nuanced than a lot of people tend to think they are. That they exist less in black and white and more in shades of grey. Jodie Comer is absolutely remarkable for showcasing that through portraying the different layers of Villanelle. Her performance is a literal gift. We cannot keep thinking and acting like we know everything about how a person thinks, feels, and behaves based strictly and entirely on one label. The thing that has stuck out to me the most, the reason I decided to even write this bullshit babble, is that one of the most searched topics about the show is whether or not it’s realistic that Villanelle cries, and honestly how sad is that? That makes me sad for V. Is it more realistic for her to develop connections and cognitive empathy if she was made into a psychopath vs if she was born that way? Is there a legitimate difference between the two? And how do we even decide which one is applicable for someone? It’s important to add that antisocial personality disorder is not the same thing as psychopathy or sociopathy. You can have aspd and not be a psychopath. Research has shown that about only a third of those diagnosed with aspd would meet criteria to be considered a psychopath. Society is not doing a great job at getting people to understand this. But to be fair, understanding personality disorders specifically has been somewhat problematic, a lot of diagnostic confusion and overlap between disorders. A LOT of work needs to be done. But as far as portrayals go, society has strictly chosen to go the route of giving us psychopathic characters and having them be inherently violent, incapable of remorse, feelings, or change. Poverty of all emotions. Subhuman. They are made out to be so abnormal and unrelatable to the point where the character of Villanelle has sparked so much debate and fascination simply because she exists in a way that actually IS relatable...and layered and beautiful and thrilling. We thought she would be the bad guy and yet we root for her at every turn, we cry for her, we want good things for her! We see her darkness and without question or hesitation we forgive it. She makes us question what we’ve previously been shown. Questioning whether or not it’s realistic that she acts the way she does is less important than questioning our own personal assumptions and beliefs and where those come from. I think that’s awesome. Villanelle is truly a gift. She is hands down one of the most well written fictional characters, which is saying a lot considering when you put something, or someone, in a box it doesn’t leave tons of room for expansion. and I honestly don’t even really need to say this, but.. Jodie Comer.

#killing eve #villanelle #jodie comer #eve polastri #sandra oh #villaneve #feel free to rb #if you want #oksana astankova

[ka-writes]

——————

Notes- Did I decide I was gonna write a fic at 2:00 AM? Yes yes I did... anyways I don’t have an archive account yet but I wanted to get it out there.... um here is chapter one of my space AU, because I absolutely fell in love with the AU.

——————

Inspired by:

Humans are Space Velociraptors

By:FreshRoses_InMyGarden_NeedTheRain

Some kids come from storks, others come from crashed spaceships

By: mmmajora

Home Again, Home Again

By: teeth_eater

All works can be found on Ao3

——————

Ohh also challenge if you wanna do it, fill in the Title! And another one... if you were an alien what question would you ask a human other than basic questions, like name and age.

Also suggestions are always appreciated! And if you wanna support my main blog it is kadoodle.. also I have no updating schedule so I will when I want to.

——————

Warnings: Cussing, mentions of tight spaces and characters being trapped, mentions of corpses, and needles.

——————

“Humans are [Insert text here]”

Chapter 1: Idiots kidnap the wrong kid..

Honestly, life hasn't been bad. His needs were met, most of the time, and he had a.. place to sleep…

Yeah no life wasn’t great.

Tommy was easily, barely, avoiding Social Services. Sleeping on benches and occasionally grass. He got whatever wasn’t wanted and had an official bag for the first time. He had some spare clothes, and no money. The authorities stopped looking for him after a while and the only main challenge was getting essentials.

No one would miss him. No one would look for him. Therefore he was the perfect target among many others. The only thing setting him apart was his sheer ability to survive, not a want, like many of the others, it was a fact he would survive. Not that his captors knew that of course.

Alternative: Tommy gets kidnapped by aliens and sbi rescues him.

——————

He woke up in a cage.

Not a cell or a room, a fucking cage.

There were a few others in various cages around the room. All of which were either dead or close to it. Most of the ones still alive had been there for months, possibly years. No one knew of course.

The smell of rotting bodies stenched the place with a coppery coating. The room wasn’t large but not quite small. It was dull grey with layers of grime settling on the floor and cages. The room was long and skinny, lined with cages against either wall in a zig zag format. The only light was coming from the small door window, which happened to be positioned right in front of Tommy. It glowed a faint yellow and was blurry, not allowing Tommy to see into the hall.

Shadows would occasionally pass by the window. None ever stopped at it. Causing the ever growing hunger to grow more. Once one had stopped at the door, not for more than a second, before it screeched. It was inhuman and sounded like a hurt hawk from one of those nature documentaries. Tommy shoved his hands onto his ears and waited for it to stop. The thing chuckled, not like a human, but something close to it.

——————

Tommy waited for what seemed like hours before something happened. The door opened, sliding into the ceiling. A weird looking creature stepped in. It looked like it had a porcelain mask over its face with a painted smiley face. There were no ears or hair, instead just more porcelain, which formed a spear which sat on shadows. The thing was wearing a lime green hoodie and black leather pants that seemingly faded into the creature's legs. The knees bent inwards causing it to look awfully awkward as it crouched near Tommy’s cage. The hands were long and lanky with no real palm. The creature also had a tail that looked close to how Tommy pictured a devil's tail to look. This was the first time in ages Tommy was glad to be behind bars.

The thing pointed at itself and said,

“Dream.”

In the most heavily accented English Tommy had ever heard. That didn’t matter as much of the fact that the seemingly painted smile moved with the words.

“Come.”

The creature unlocked the cage and half dragged Tommy out of the cage into what Tommy presumed to be the lab. He noticed a window. The only thing for miles was stars. He was in space. He had been kidnapped by Aliens. Fuck.

——————

Humans were a heavily avoided species. The things were what kids would expect to come out of their closet. They were feared, and for good reason.

The first ship to find Earth was ecstatic. Finding another intelligent species in what would’ve been deemed as a planetary desert was a scientific breakthrough. Causing the entirety of the media to go insane for a couple of years.. That was until the first ship ventured onto the planet. It was immediately shot down. The entire crew was killed and the entirety of the ship was destroyed in a matter of minutes. The ISF (Intergalactic Safety Force) deemed it as a no flight zone and claimed to punish anyone in the desert. Even so poachers smuggled humans and within days had their ship crashed.

The only ones allowed to take humans were scientists, who were specialized in taking care of difficult species. They were allowed to test on said species and do whatever they wanted, in the name of science of course. Most people didn’t care how they treated them and were really only interested in what could kill them.

Which is where Wilbur came in. He was a toxicologist, a scientist studying poisons, he also dealt with various potions and other chemical mixes. This knowledge is what gained his entry to the Dream Team Ship.

He had been testing on around nine different humans for the past six months on the celestial calendar. This time Dream, his boss and the captain, brought in a juvenile human. He was skinny and lanky. Clearly had been starving before being taken. He felt bad before shaking off his pity.

“V74 and V83. Make sure he can communicate beforehand.” Dream promptly stated before leaving the kid in the room.

Wilbur tried not to think about his terrified face, before he clipped on the translator. Usually it is worn on the back of the head, since humans brains are vastly different than most species, it is clipped to the left side of the head.

The translator looks like a simple device when in reality it took dozens of celestial years to perfect it. It’s a small silver disk that ingrains into the part of the brain that controls communicating. After the body gets used to the device it can translate any language into one you understand instantly.

It took a couple more years for the translator to incorporate the estimated 7,000 languages spoken on Earth. For a planet that has been isolated it has a more complex and diverse set of cultures and languages, than Pellucidian has had in centuries. To say Wilbur was jealous, wouldn’t be far from the truth. Not that he studied cultures for a living. It was something that always interested him.

He put the device on the kid’s head and grimaced at the pain that was on the kid’s face. He quickly dried up the blood and mixed a solution that would ease the pain. It was clear and tasted like water, which is the only way they got humans to take the pain reduction.

The kid relaxed for a spilt second before tending at the unfamiliar setting.

“Where am I?” He snapped, causing Wilbur to jump back a bit, before collecting himself and standing up.

“The Dream Team craft’s labatory.” The kid’s face flashed with panic for a split second, “You have two testings scheduled for today. It will go quickly.”

“Will it be painful?” The kid asked. As standard for testing, Wilbur ignored the question and measured the substances. He quickly cleaned the puncture spot before giving him the needle.

The kid winced in pain. Wilbur swiftly led him to the testing chair. It had restraints that moved with the patient's body, which prevented bruising while keeping them in place. Wilbur clicked them on and sat at the desk located to the left of the kid.

“What did you inject into me?” The kid asked clearly trying to fight off the anesthetic.

“A dosage of Lidocaine, which is an anesthetic for your species. It’s only to numb pain that may come with the solutions we will be using today.” The kid’s face flashed with a deeper panic than before, causing Wilbur to tense. “We won’t start yet, since we have a list of questions to go through before we begin.” Wilbur lied. He hated testing people, especially kids. Dream of course didn’t care, like the rest of the Dreamon species. It made him sick. That was when he made a split second decision. Hoping he could get a distress signal out, without alerting the other crew members. He was gonna get the kid off the ship, at the next stop of course. Which was in three celestial hours.

The kid scoffed, clearly not believing the lie. He paused a moment thinking over his options before he smirked,“Fine. Ask me what you want bitch-boy!” Wilbur gasped, clearly not anticipating the insult.

——————

Chapter 1 End

1406 words

——————

End notes: Why the hell does google docs make it so hard to copy and paste??

Also I had to do some intense googling for this... I hope you enjoyed!

(Also also this is my first ever fanfic... please give feedback and reblog!!)

Minor mistakes are forgiven... don’t expect me to be perfect... I am dyslexic.

——————

Tommy: ....

Wilbur: ....

*intense starring*

Wilbur POV: I am kidnapping it.

——————

Chapter 2:

#my writing #my fanfic tag #okay 2 rb #tommy mcyt #wilbur soot #dream mcyt #dream smp fanfiction #sbi au #space au

[script-a-world]

I'm writing a story (well, RP) that involves an alien refugee who arrived on Earth while pregnant. There's a few other aliens with her, one of whom has had a child before. It's been established that I'm going to need to answer the Earth scientists' questions about how pregnancy works for the aliens. But for the life of us, neither I nor my writing partner can think of actual questions to ask. So... do you have any suggestions for "things human scientists/doctors would need to know about alien reproduction if they're going to be providing health care"? I googled things like "things to know about pregnancy" but none of the articles are very helpful. [I guess this could be reworded to "what are things you need to figure out when worldbuilding alien reproduction post-conception if it's important to the story to figure it out?"]

Miri: If you had asked a few months ago, I could have suggested this class to you:

http://www.kittywumpus.net/blog/class-where-babies-come-from-speculative-reproduction/ Unfortunately I don’t know when the next round of it will be, but it was an interesting class where we talked about different types of reproduction that could exist out there in fiction, and just how different it could be from reproduction as we know it as carbon based life forms.

Some things to consider would be what kind of nutrition your alien needs, what kind of environment they need, and if these are different from their regular needs, and if the offspring and carrying being’s needs are different after the birth as well. How many offspring are expected? What effect will this process have on the carrying being? Human pregnancy can be very stressful, damaging even on the carrying person. History has shown that many have not survived this process. Is this a high risk process for your alien?

Wootzel: I second most of what Miri said, and I’m going to repeat/build from it a bit. Those sheltering/feeding/providing care for the alien will need to know what kind of diet is needed to keep the mother and child/children healthy. If their biological processes are similar to earthlings, they might need higher protein content, for instance.

Along that line, are there any substances that the alien should not come in contact with while pregnant? Human fetuses are very fragile and prone to defects if chemicals are introduced that  don’t have substantial ill effects on adult humans, and there might be some things that the adults can tolerate that the pregnant one needs to be sheltered from.

Is there any particular diagnostic/supportive/monitoring care that is usually provided to make sure mom and baby are healthy? Can humans run some kind of testing panel like bloodwork on the previously-pregnant one, compare it to the pregnant one, and have some vague idea of whether it looks normal? Will an ultrasound show anything of interest?

What does the birth process tend to look like? What are some common complications and treatment methods for them? Is setting up an IV with something like a saline solution helpful?

After the birth, will the mother be able to care for the child/ren right away, or will she need help with it while she rests and recovers? Do their bodies make food for the baby (like our milk) or will it need to be fed? Mammals literally cannot digest adult food when they’re infants, but other species on our world (reptiles, birds) often eat a modified version of the adult diet right away or jump straight into eating the same thing as the parents, so you can very realistically pick a point on that spectrum to aim for.

Is there anything the baby will need in terms of temperature, moisture, humidity, light level, etc? A human hospital could be a great place for an infant of this species, or an awful one depending on what the needs are like. However, if the adults tolerate our environments well, it’s unlikely that the baby will need something vastly different.

Humans are more fragile in our pregnancies and births than most mammals on our world, because growing a creature with such a large and complex brain is hard and there are lots of things that can go wrong. Even so, most mothers can eat a similar diet along with their peers, have some reduction in activity level, and with a bit of supportive care and time to recover, can give birth safely and return to health. It’s likely that, similarly, your species of alien needs a few adjustments and extra care to have a healthy pregnancy, but nothing crazy. Otherwise, the species probably wouldn’t have survived to sapience.

In modern medicine, we have many forms of monitoring and supportive care that are recommended to help with pregnancy, which has reduced the risks, but basic biological processes still take care of most of it. Unless you want to write your alien having a complication, it’s realistic that the people helping her could try to answer the above questions, have to guess a whole lot, but ultimately keep her comfortable and well-fed and have the whole thing turn out okay.

#aliens #pregnancy #medicine

[himbohargreeves]

The link between diet and autism: a critical analysis of the recent Earth Locker episode and a chance for River to relive her lab report title writing days

Link to the original video

So as I already mentioned I’ve seen a few people talking about the recent episode of the Earth Locker (a podcast by Robert Sheehan, Tom Hopper, and Bryon Knight) where they talk with Tom and his wife Laura about their experiences raising their autistic son. I watched the whole episode and while there were a lot of good points made, there was also some misinformation, statements that were poorly explained and could be misinterpreted, and a couple of pretty harmful ideas put across which I’m gonna go into below. 

Disclaimer one: I’m gonna be saying a lot of stuff that I’m not going to be posting sources for. This is because everything I’m saying comes from my experiences as an autistic person, my experiences working as a support worker for adults with autism where I am currently a key worker for two autistic individuals, my work related training on autism, mental health, and diet & nutrition, and my knowledge from my psychology degree in which I also spent a lot of time studying biology and physiology. This is all just stuff that I know, and at some point I might try to add some sources but I’m writing this fresh off watching and making notes on this video so my energy is already running a little low and I’d rather focus on getting my points across instead of having to take time to source every piece of information. 

Disclaimer two: The purpose of this post isn’t to attack or defend any of the people involved in the podcast. This is also in no way a criticism of Tom and Laura’s parenting. This is purely a criticism of the discussion that took place on the podcast, not on any of the choices they’ve made for their son.

Disclaimer three: I’m going to be using the phrase “challenging behaviour” a lot while I’m explaining things as this is the term used in most modern research and is what we use at work. This basically describes any behaviour that causes harm to the individual or to other people around them, or behaviour that is detrimental to the individual’s wellbeing. 

So the main thing I want to go into with this is the misinformation and misinterpretation of information that was central to the discussion in this podcast, and that was around the connection between diet and autism. Most of the things Tom and Laura said about the effects of diet weren’t incorrect, but it wasn’t explained accurately and missed out on some key points so let’s go: 

In terms of whether diet can “cause” autism: no it can’t. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest it does. It also can’t “worsen” autism because autism isn’t something that can get “worse” or “better”. A person with autism can develop and learn new skills and they can also regress (and diet can influence this, which I’ll go into further on), but an autistic person at a lower stage of development does not have “worse” autism than a person at a higher stage of development. 

Poor diet can have an impact on autistic people in the same way as with neurotypical people. If we eat junk, we tend to feel like junk as a result, and when we feel like junk it can be harder to concentrate and carry out our usual day to day tasks. However, autistic people are also significantly more likely to suffer from digestive problems and food intolerances, and so for a lot of autistic people (or parents of autistic children) diet may be something that requires close attention. So saying that an autistic individual’s challenging behaviour could be a result of their diet isn’t necessarily untrue, but it does massively oversimplify the issue. The challenging behaviour is more likely a response to pain or discomfort, (as well as frustration if they are unable to communicate this), which is caused by a diet unsuitable for this specific individual, which is caused by an intolerance or digestive problem, which they were at greater risk of developing due to their autism. It’s worth mentioning that medical professionals still don’t know why this comorbidity exists. 

So, referring back to Tom and Laura’s experience with their son, they were explaining that their son’s challenging behaviour spiked while he was on a high-sugar diet. Laura also added that he had been suffering from increasingly frequent infections in his ears and throat while eating these foods, which makes sense because high blood sugar levels can weaken the immune system and make us more susceptible to infections. They then explained that these infections stopped following a tonsillectomy and a change to a sugar-free diet, which then also lead to a complete reduction in their son’s challenging behaviours. Again, implying that the reduction in behaviours is a result of cutting out the sugar is oversimplifying. It’s most likely that their son’s challenging behaviours were a response to the pain the infections were causing, which may or may not have been linked to his sugar intake. Either way, autistic people are all individuals and so while a reduction in sugar intake has benefited their son, by no means does that mean that all autistic people should be following a low-sugar diet or that this would be beneficial for them. 

This isn’t entirely on topic but there are two other things I want to address in terms of what Tom and Laura said while talking about their son, the first being when talking about their initial approach to their children's’ diet before they were aware that their son was autistic. Laura essentially said that she wanted their children to be able to try different foods and that the focus would be on education about health and diet rather than cutting “unhealthy” foods out of their diets completely, which I thought was a great way to approach things. However she then added that, had they known about their son’s autism at the time, they may have approached things differently, which I was confused about. I think (and hope)��she was just trying to say that if they had known upfront that sugar particularly seemed to be detrimental to their son, they would have reduced that straight away rather than having to use a process of trial and error which makes sense, but just the way it was phrased set off alarm bells because it sounded like she was implying that they would have controlled his diet more strictly if they had known he was autistic. Hopefully this isn’t the case because autistic people don’t need to have their choices limited if there is no detriment to their health or wellbeing. 

Another thing I was confused about, and I’m not sure if this was supposed to be more of a weird analogy rather than factual information, was when Tom started talking about “sensory glands” when talking about their son’s hypersensitivity to sounds. I think his exact words were something along the line of saying that the high sugar levels were causing his “sensory glands” to “swell” which was heightening his sensitivity. And like... unless I missed something there is no such thing as a sensory gland and they certainly don’t swell up when we’re over stimulated or when we have a lot of sugar. Sugar triggers high dopamine responses in our brains which then leads to cravings and can cause spikes and crashes in mood, and it can also cause inflammation, all of which can cause discomfort and in turn could lead to an increase in sensitivity, but as far as I know sugar doesn’t have a direct effect on our senses. 

Now on to the elephant in the room and the two big, glaring no-no's in this podcast, both of which were said by Tom (these are not direct quotes because I didn’t get a chance to jot them down in time so I’m paraphrasing slightly):

“we cannot ignore the correlation between rising autism rates and the increase in fast food consumption” (spoiler alert: yes we can)

“I really want to get to the cause of autism and see if there’s something that can be done to prevent it”

So, first of all, autism isn’t something that needs to be prevented. Autistic people are not a detriment to society. We don’t have an illness, we just experience the world differently and, in some cases, require additional support to live our lives as fully as possible. Obviously it can’t be ruled out that fast food, or anything else, has a part to play in rising rates, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it does and correlation absolutely does not equal causation. Gay representation in the media has also been steadily rising with rates of autism diagnosis. Does this mean that seeing gay people on TV makes people autistic? No. As Laura briefly mentioned, it is far more likely that the rising rates are actually due to an increase in understanding about autism and the accessibility of diagnosis, especially when you consider how many people are still slipping under the radar even with all the knowledge we have today.

I appreciate that most of this podcast is just a conversation between friends about various topics, but when the goal of this podcast is to “raise awareness”, and with the shared platform the people involved have, casual statements like these are incredibly dangerous. With the general implication that if everyone lived a healthy, clean, and organic lifestyle, we could reduce the number of autistic people in our society, this not only puts the “blame” on parents of autistic people, and on the individuals themselves, but is also dipping into eugenics territory. And while I don’t think the intentions behind either statement were malicious, they were incredibly ignorant, and the fact that they went completely unchallenged was concerning and made me pretty uncomfortable. 

There were still a lot of positives in the podcast. I’m really glad Laura was also involved because she definitely came across as being the most educated on the subject of the four of them and did make a point of bringing up issues with diagnosis (particularly among girls with autism), her and Tom’s privilege in terms of being able to work with doctor’s to find out as much as possible about their son’s dietary needs and to then provide him with a tailored diet, and also addressing the issues with “high functioning vs low functioning” when Rob asked about the “severity” of their son’s autism. However there was still an undeniable amount of inaccurate or poorly presented information, as well as some things that were just plain incorrect and offensive. I appreciate that a lot of this was coming from personal experience rather than being generalised information, but I think this could have been communicated a lot more clearly and effectively considering the intention was to spread awareness, and the episode would have massively benefitted from the input of an autistic adult. Rob specifically had a lot of questions about autism in general and I think they would have been much better answered by somebody with autism, rather than a parent giving an outside perspective of their child’s experiences. It’s always a little uncomfortable to watch four neurotypical people discuss autism, regardless of how positive their intentions are, and I don’t think it would have been a great challenge for them to find an autistic person who would have been willing to talk about the topic with them. 

#YES it took me two hours to write this NO I won't elaborate #tom hopper #robert sheehan #the earth locker

[evolutionsvoid]

I have to say, the more I think about Slimes, the more excited and confused I get. For a natural historian, they sure are fascinating creatures! There is just nothing else like them! However, they bring me a whole lot of headaches because how do you categorize these things!? How do you understand or even define them? The main issue I have is a bit similar to the problem I run into when figuring out how to categorize the different dryads and the ever-growing arrangement of hybrids. The wide array of crossbreeding and how each "species" can make other "species" is quite mind boggling in the dryad world. In the land of Slimes, it is even crazier! I am sure some may recall other entries I have had on Slimes, like the Flayers, Leg Eaters and Stone Chimneys. These Slimes have chosen particular lifestyles in certain environments, and this creates quite a distinct creature. Even the entry I will shortly get into here follows the same path. The thing is, though, is that these adaptations and abilities are not locked to one group! A Flayer has adjusted its pseudobody to create an adhesive composition, while a Leg Eater has influenced its own slime to produce acidic substances. Despite this, any other normal Slime could easily walk up to one of these "species" and copy their abilities! One simple transfer, and they could learn the ways to slowly change their composition to match. So all of these different groups are just Slimes who have decided to follow a certain path, one that they could just abruptly change at any moment, or even combine! What do we do when a Fire Flayer is created? Or spike-shooting Leg Eaters start to take form? It's a mess! Sure, we could just call them all Slimes and be done with it, but where is the organization? The understanding? That doesn't sound like a conclusion, it sounds like a surrender! I refuse to take the easy route! I do not just drop these things the moment they get tough! That is when I get motivated, because if we don't figure this out, then who will?! Oh right, I am supposed to be writing about Fire Slimes. Whoops! I am sure just saying the name "Fire Slime" already makes things quite obvious to most folk. They are Slimes that can produce fire. That description is a bit reductive, but if you needed to explain it to a common member of the public, it works. In truth, the Fire Slimes do not just conjure fire out of nowhere. The flame comes from the flammable fluid that their pseudobody creates from its food and waste. This liquid can be secreted on the outside of their bodies to coat themselves, or it can be stored in bubbles that are formed inside their pseudobody. Often, they do both, storing a whole lot of it on the inside, then sweating out the excess as a defensive measure. Despite their ability to secrete this flammable substance, they can't actually ignite it. The Slime does not have the means to naturally create the spark or heat that would be required to light it all aflame. This isn't too much of problem for them, as there are plenty of other sources in this vast world that can provide them with this spark. The easiest and most abundant are rocks like flint that can be struck with metals to create a shower of fiery sparks. The Fire Slimes will collect their first fire starters in their early stages of life, and continue to amass an entire collection during the following years. This is to ensure they always have a fire starter on hand even if a foe destroys one of them during a fight, and it is also for decoration. All Slimes love a bit of fashion, and these fellows enjoy coating themselves with rocks and steel. With a fire starter in their possession, a Fire Slime is now capable of igniting their fluids. Just one spark, and it all lights up in an instant! These flames don't last too long, as it burns through their fuel quite quickly. However, these Slimes have found many ways to utilize this weaponry to the best of their abilities. With stores of the liquid inside them, they can use internal pressure to shoot it out from their bodies, either in a tight stream or a wide spray. A quick clacking of their flints will ignite the torrent and turn it into a blast of fire! This is why people tend to think that Fire Slimes can breath fire from their "heads" or shoot it from their "arms," as it looks the part! Alternatively, the Fire Slime can gather its internal stores of liquid and seal it in a thin layer of slime. Pushing this bubble to the exterior of their bodies, they will coat the outside of it in fluid and set it on fire. In one quick motion, they will launch this burning gob at a foe, looking to stick it to their hides. The gooey coating will get stuck on armor or skin, but its loss of contact with the Slime's heart will cause it to fall apart. This means that the store of flammable fluid will begin to leak out, coming in contact with the fiery outside and igniting all at once. Essentially, it all goes "boom," and that is really bad when that stuff is adhered to your face. So, in short, they can fire off explosive gobs of flaming slime, quite the weapon! While intimidating, these weapons aren't the most commonly used ones. The most frequent use of all this is focused on the liquid that coats their whole pseudobodies. A thin layer of this fluid is present on them at all times, and a simple strike of their stony scales will set it all ablaze. When agitated, a Fire Slime will rattle its fire starters as a warning. If the foe ignores this, they will activate every pair of stone and steel on their bodies. A spray of sparks will ensue, and the outer coating of fluid will burst into a huge aura of flame. This sudden burst of fire is quite terrifying, but not super deadly. It lasts for only a few moments, and it will only singe those that are in close quarters. However, this display is often enough to scare away foes and leave them with a few smoking hairs. It is mainly used as an intimidation tactic, though it does have another use. External parasites are a plague for Slimes, and what better way to be rid of them than to burn them off?

 Fire Slimes can use this arsenal for defense, but they also find it handy for hunting. Explosive blobs are good for blowing apart larger prey,  and streams of flame can flush food from their burrows and dens. Seeing a Fire Slime torch a gnu is both fascinating and horrifying, and I am not sure if I am ever going to forget that. I am sure there are many who hear about this behavior and liken it to dragons and their fiery breath. In fact, there are quite a few folk out there that say that Fire Slimes picked up this ability by mimicking dragons. I mean, c'mon! Flammable liquid expelled from the "mouth" that is then lit by sparks! That's just like a dragon! While I won't deny the similarities, I believe this is not the source of their inspiration. I am not alone in this thinking, as a whole bunch of other researchers have looked into the spread of the Fire Slimes and the environments their ranges cover. Yes, Fire Slimes can appear in volcanic areas, but they are primarily found in arid places. Within this ranges, researchers have noted quite a few alkaline lakes in their territory, a habitat that Fire Slimes are quite fond of. Another piece to the puzzle is found on their pseudobodies, as Fire Slimes tend to form very familiar structures with their collected ores. Some would say it is an "avian" look! Speaking of birds, what are the most famous birds to inhabit these alkaline lakes? Phoenixes! Yes, indeed, we believe that Fire Slimes owe their origins to their blazing beauties of the burning lakes! I dare say it is obvious! Phoenixes use their metallic beaks to create sparks that ignite their own flammable powder, which would be the perfect inspiration for a curious Slime! They would mimic this behavior and even copy their appearance to better grasp the concept. A sparking beak and feathers can be seen in the way Fire Slimes carry themselves and their collections, unknowingly honoring the source of their epiphany! You can even look at the ranges of Phoenixes and Fire Slimes and see that the two tend to overlap quite a lot! It's incredible! It makes you wonder what Slimes will come up with next! What creature will they find inspiration from and birth an entirely new category of Slimes! Unfortunately, not everyone shares my excitement of these prospects, seeing as the Fire Slimes are already a bit of a problem. People already aren't a fan of Slimes, now imagine their joy when they see one that can spray fire. Though it varies with each individual Slime and their knowledge, there are indeed enough wilder Fire Slimes out there that don't grasp the concept of "please don't burn me and my property." It doesn't help that most of their problems are solved with fire, so the second they are accosted by an angry landowner they tend to start spraying. Or if they see a tasty goat that isn't theirs (which doesn't bother them, as concept of property is a bit of a shaky subject with Slimes) they will happily treat themselves to a cook-out without a hesitation. They don't really think about those who aren't resistant to burning, as the simpler Slimes tend to divide all living creatures into two groups: "Those That Burn" and "Those That Don't." To them, things that can be set on fire are Food, while things that cannot are Not Food. On one hand, it creates the obvious conclusion of "Hey! That farmer is on fire! I guess I can eat them!" However, it can also create the idea of "this person says they aren't food, so I guess they don't burn!" It is not as terrifying as the first example, but let me tell you it can cause its own set of problems. For example, a fellow Fire Slime may get annoyed by insects trying to feed on its pseudobody and decide to unleash its fire aura to fry the nibbling gnats. They do this without hesitation because they aren't worried about the fire, and since the inquisitive plant person accompanying them said they weren't food, they shouldn't mind either! I minded. Quite a lot.     Chlora Myron Dryad Natural Historian -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Going from something fresh and new to something that is really old and has been sitting in my posting folder for practically years. Nothing too crazy or flashy, but I had to post them sooner or later!

#slime #slimes #monster #creature #fire slime #art #drawing

[fapangel]

help, how do I write, well... armoured infantry fighting eachother? like, everyone's decked to the nines, so now I have the problem of gunfights devolving into brawls as people run through mags.

Treat armor much like how it works in real life - incredibly valuable for buying you a second chance, but not nearly so impervious that you can just stand around getting blasted. I presume you’re having a problem where you apply this metric and it makes modern-day style firefights where cover is king grind on forever, right? Well, you might be surprised to know that many real-life firefights actually do work that way. This is why “fire and maneuver” is such a key component in modern ranged combat, and why flanking is as important in the modern day as it was in rank-and-file melee combat of the ancient world. When both sides are in cover (and they will be since if they’re not in cover to begin with they’ll get there fast,) and playing peekaboo with each other, many rounds will be expended for relatively little effect. To do damage, you have to literally flank the enemy - if he’s hiding behind a rock, you have to move around to his side, so you’re shooting at him from two directions, so both sides of his rock are threatened. 

Naturally, once your enemy is flanked in this fashion, they tend to retreat and regroup rather than stay in their compromised position and be swiftly annihilated. Compare this to B.H. Liddel Hart’s words, where he says that strategy “is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by a battle is sure to achieve this. In other words, dislocation is the aim of strategy...” 

Liddel Hart was describing strategy, but his observations apply equally well to tactics, even squad-level tactics, in modern warfare. Which, in itself, neatly shows you why insurgencies are so hard to combat - infantrymen with rifles are superb tools - in truth, the ONLY tool - for taking and holding ground, but forcing an enemy off the ground you want to hold is a lot easier than actually pinning them down and eliminating them. Thus the goal of insurgencies is to not actually hold any ground of their own, but stay ephemeral. 

Thus the integral relationship between fire and maneuver which you see military theorists constantly kicking around. All you need to keep in mind (a point said theorists often get too deep into the weeds to remember) is that applying firepower is the point of maneuver. You need 1. something to shoot and 2. a clear shot to your target in order to use it. If they’re in foxholes or a bunker, for example, that means getting close enough to use grenades. 

So to apply power armor to a firefight, we have to consider how it affects fire and maneuver. Now in the history of war there has always been a fluid relationship between armor and firepower, one that often changed rapidly as technology changed. Sometimes it’s the pre-dreadnaught era, where even the biggest nutcracking guns afloat couldn’t penetrate the crucial spaces of opposing battleships, and sometimes it’s the 1940s era, where body armor is mostly an afterthought as no practicably wearable technology can really oppose the weapons in use. But more often it’s been Conquistador-era, where people check for the “bullet proof” dent in the armor that proves it can stop a musket ball - or for that matter, a (lighter) crossbow bolt - but know there’s no option to protect the face or limbs, because they’ve already used up their weight allotment on the armor protecting their torso. 

One of the first things you have to decide about the technology in your story is, this relative relationship between offense and defense. Is one currently enjoying advantage over the other, or are they in a period where they’re relatively evenly matched? 

From there, account for the effects of (what I assume is) power armor. Powered suits not only let you carry more armor, but also more powerful weapons to punch THROUGH the armor of your enemies. They also allow you to move a lot faster, over much rougher terrain, as the infantrymen are freed from the limits of human strength. This boost in mobility is doubled by the reduction of firepower. The basic technique of fire-and-maneuver is covering fire; you pour fire onto the enemy so they have to stay behind their cover and can’t light up your troops as they move. Thus the concept of “effective fire;” you need to put enough rounds on your enemies that they are actually forced to duck, or if they are moving, force them to stop advancing and hug cover. If armor is stronger, then it takes more fire to be effective. This benefits everyone, of course, but I’m going to wager it helps troopers trying to maneuver relatively more, as the ones behind cover already have very good protection. The armor mostly protects against blast-frag; i.e. shrapnel. (Shrapnel is the primary killer of infantrymen because it spreads the “love” around. This is why things like tanks were historically hard to kill with artillery or airpower; blast-fragmentation compensated for the innate inaccuracy of unguided munitions. You either needed direct fire [like the 37mm gunpods Stuka’s used, or yes, the GAU-8 decades later,) or ‘spread’ munitions that could kill tanks, like napalm or armor-piercing bomblets.) The precision-guided munitions revolution has largely negated many ordinance distinctions born of blast-frag primacy; pretty much any weapon, even ones fired out of a rifleman’s underbarrel grenade launcher, can be precision guided and home in on a single target; even a single power-armored infantryman. So while power armored infantry in the real world, right now, would be very tough to kill because most standard artillery rounds couldn’t root them out, in a futuristic setting we can presume that they’re dropping self-guiding submunitions with micro-sized armor piercing warheads. Thus the real beneficiaries, comparatively, would be the guys maneuvering - not only are they faster, but they’re primarily threatened by hostile small arms, and with better armor, the same amount of firepower threatens them less. Overall mobility on the battlefield would be enhanced. 

That naturally leads to firefights happening at shorter ranges as both sides aggressively maneuver on each other, as neither sides fire will be effective at suppressing the other till they reach shorter ranges (mainly due to accuracy. The more rounds clustered tighter on target, the more likely they’re going to drop.) And both sides can reach close range faster. So fights will be shorter, faster, and more intense. 

Remember - it doesn’t HAVE to be this way. You can approach this from a question of “what kind of dynamic do I WANT?” and then simply write the tech in the story to support that. Remember what I said earlier about the struggle between firepower and armor through history - it can change fast - so it’s entirely plausible for your story to be happening at any point on that spectrum. Those pre-dreads I mentioned? Only 40 years later, in WWII, firepower had caught up so drastically that the guns of a cruiser could punch clean through the belt armor of a battleship under 15,000 yards or so. But that was suicidally close for a cruiser... because of the battleship’s own guns. Again, fire and maneuver. Or firepower, maneuver and armor, if you want to make it a triangle; each one has both offensive and defensive applications. The shape of that triangle dictates the blend of them that will be used to conduct warfare and in what fashion. So if you don’t have a specific, desired combat dynamic in mind for the story, it’s also good (and fun) to nail down what that triangle looks like FIRST, and then extrapolate from there to discover what it’d be like. It all depends on your priorities as a storyteller. 

A last note - everything I discussed above is an issue under serious consideration IRL as pertains to infantry. Body armor has gotten scary good, in the last few decades especially. The Army was first kicking around a 6.5mm round in the 90s and the topic is coming up for consideration more and more often, as well as alternatives like three round burst and such (remember the AN-94s clever super-fast doubletap? Ayep.) So you can read up on current IRL discussion on this topic to get ideas about how things might change and how armies will adapt. 

My discord is Demetrious#5963 and I’m on Rizon under Demetrious as well; hit me up if you wanna talk more on specifics or whatever~