#this is NOT a proper analysis or laid out argument or anything | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fandom-imagines-stories · 4 years

Text

If I Don’t Wake Tomorrow

Tom Branson x Reader

Words: 3395

Part One

Summary: Married for nearly a year, the reader and her husband return to her home and family for a dinner at her sister’s invitation. Tom faces judgment and becomes a point of ridicule. Everything halts when the reader falls deathly ill.

Notes: Like I said, I love putting my boys through hell. Yes, I’m lazy and I just totally made up a nameless illness. Sue me. Let me know what you guys think and if you want to see more Downton in the future. (I know this gif is gut-wrenching, but it was just so perfect, I had to use it.)

Everyone had been gathered into the library for Dr. Clarkson’s analysis. The Winstons were required to stay since no one knew how contagious Y/N’s illness could be. It was quickly determined that this was no ordinary fever. Robert was pacing madly back and forth, waiting for Dr. Clarkson to speak. Tom stood silently in the corner, Sybil keeping close to him to make sure he wasn’t alone.

“Dr. Clarkson, please just tell us what it is.” Cora begged. He seemed to be struggling to find the words.

“The good news is, if she makes it through the first 24 hours, the fever should flush itself out.” Everyone hung onto one simple word. If. Dr. Clarkson’s hands fell limply to his sides. He felt so useless. “The trouble is, most patients don’t last 12.” Cora cried out, Mary clutched Matthew’s hand, and Robert stopped pacing.

Tom felt as if he’d been split open. Sybil watched him grip the back of a chair, doubling over and finding it difficult to breathe. This couldn’t possibly be happening. Not to his Y/N. Your life together had barely even started.

“Is there anything to be done?” Edith asked. She had been rather quiet through the night, but her worry was genuine. Dr. Clarkson sighed.

“I’m afraid all we can do is try to keep her fever down… and pray.” A heaviness fell over everyone in the room. Downstairs, a similar scene was playing out. The servants were gathered at the table receiving instructions from a solemn Mr. Carson. Y/N, no matter her decisions, was loved by many of the servants and as a daughter of Downton she would have anything she needed.

Anna was the most distraught, though she was able to hide it well. She loved all of the girls dearly and Y/N was the brightest soul she’d ever seen. The idea of that light dimming broke her heart. She couldn’t help but wonder what was going through Tom’s mind, the poor man. She was carrying a tray of toast up to the room so Sybil and Tom would have something to eat. It wasn’t proper, but Sybil knew Y/N would be the most comfortable with Anna. Thomas certainly wouldn’t be the friendliest face to wake up to.

“Fortunately, this strain is only transmitted through contaminated liquids, usually drinking water.” Dr. Clarkson explained to those who had moved up to Y/N’s room. Violet and Isobel remained in the library, along with Edith to keep the Winstons at bay.

“So we can be with her?” Cora likely would have stayed anyway, illness be damned. She was to stay by her baby’s side every second she could. Dr. Clarkson nodded.

“And the Winstons are free to go.” Mary muttered, grateful at least that Y/N would not have to spend another moment in the same house as those girls.

“Can I…” Tom tried to keep his composure as he looked down at his wife. “Can I hold her hand?” Dr. Clarkson’s eyes were filled with pity for the poor man. Tom didn’t want his pity. He wanted him to save his wife.

“Of course.”

“Must you all speak of me as if I’m not here?” You laughed weakly, your limbs heavy as you tried to move them. Tom was at your side in an instant. “You aren’t making a fuss of me, are you?” This was supposed to be Sybil’s dinner and you hated to ruin it. Tom laid a hand on your cheek.

“You gave me quite a scare, darling.” His eyes were red from crying, making you feel even more guilty.

“Now that you’re awake, I would like to do a more thorough examination.” Dr. Clarkson suggested. If they could determine how much the illness had progressed, he may be able to give the family more of an answer. He motioned towards the door and the family began to file out. Tom stayed beside you.

“Tom,” Sybil began gently. “I’m afraid you’ll need to leave. Only for a few moments.” At first, he didn’t move. He couldn’t. His eyes were locked on his wife and he couldn’t bear to tear them away.

“It’s best we all stay out of Sybil’s way.” You gave him the most reassuring smile you could muster. He nodded slightly and leaned over to kiss your forehead.

“I’ll just be out in the hall.” He promised before reluctantly following the rest of the family out of the room. He felt as if all of the strength had left him. He could barely stand without leaning against the banister. His Y/N. His beautiful Y/N. She would be alright. She had to be.

“Is there anything we can do, Tom? Anything at all?” Matthew asked, his wife standing silently beside him. Tom had always known Mary to be cold and lacking emotion, but now her eyes were filled with a sorrow that he’d never seen in them before.

“Pray.” Tom choked out. Matthew gave him a sympathetic look and placed a hand on his shoulder.

“Of course.” He wished that there was something else. Anything else. Tom was a good friend and he and Y/N deserved happiness. Matthew began to head downstairs, but his wife lingered. Mary looked as if she wanted to say something, but she just couldn’t find the words. She turned and followed her husband just as Edith was ushering the Winston’s out the door now that they were cleared to leave.

Abigail and Margaret looked as if this were nothing more than an annoying inconvenience rather than someone’s life at stake. Abigail looked up and saw a distressed Tom and leaned over to his sister, hardly lowering her voice.

“Look at him. Surely he’s the one who killed her. Who knows what sort of illnesses she’s contracted in that dirty country. And that train!” They shook their heads. He shrunk away, her words sinking into him like claws. Mary had had enough.

“Have you no decency, Abigail?” She hissed, breaking away from Matthew to confront her.

“I beg your pardon?” The family halted in their tracks and Edith gave her sister a pleading look. She didn’t want things worse than they already were.

“First, you blatantly insult my sister at dinner and now you mock her husband as his poor wife lay ill and possibly dying!” She had raised her voice beyond what was proper but at the moment she didn’t care if the Queen heard her. “How dare you come in this home and act in such a manner.”

“Really, Mary, did you expect all of society to accept your new… connections?” Margaret interjected, though Lady Crawley’s ferocity frightened her.

“Those connections are my sister and my brother-in-law.” Mary fired back. Matthew was too stunned to intervene, and besides, he couldn’t help but feel pride fill his heart. “Former chauffeur or not, Tom Branson is more welcome here than you shall ever be. Now leave here and never come back.”

“I will dismiss your outburst since your sister is dying.” Abigail held her chin up, her last words spoken with venom. “I do hope she gets better.” With that, the family scurried out quickly to avoid any more altercations.

“You didn’t have to do that.” Tom’s quiet voice surprised Mary. He had joined them at the bottom of the stairs, his eyes sunken and red. If one didn’t know, they would think he was the one who was dying. Mary straightened her shoulders.

“Believe me, Tom, I have been waiting to do that for years.” Sybil emerged from the room, signaling that it was okay to come back. The three rushed up the stairs, quickly joined by Cora and Robert.

“This illness works quicker than anything I’ve ever seen.” Dr. Clarkson sighed, standing in the doorway. Tom looked at him in horror.

“What does that mean?” Sybil stepped towards him.

“Tom-”

“What does it mean!” He didn’t mean to be so rough when he grabbed Sybil’s shoulders.

“Unhand her at once.” Robert ordered. The tensions were high and stress made everyone act strangely.

“Papa, it’s alright.” Sybil slowly took Tom’s hands off of her, keeping a gentle gaze into his eyes. “Tom, I need you to try and calm down. Y/N needs to rest and we don’t want to upset her. Can you do that for me?” He swallowed hard and nodded before proceeding into the room.

“I’ve caused a good deal of trouble, haven’t I?” You cried, weakly reaching out to your sister. “I’m sorry for ruining your birthday, Sybil.”

“Don’t be ridiculous. You haven’t ruined anything.” Sybil smiled at you and Mary admired her ability to remain so sunny in such a dark time.

“How are you feeling, love?” Tom took his place beside you, softly kissing your forehead. “I feel absolutely fine. I’m not sure what you’re all so worried about.” You teased, but laughing made your head ache terribly.

“We must allow her to rest.” Dr. Clarkson instructed. “I recommend all of you to do the same.” Truthfully, he worried that an abundance of people in the room would excite you and make things worse. Mary and Matthew walked towards you and your eldest sister placed a hand on your cheek.

“Married or not, you are still a Crawley woman. And us Crawley women never give up without a fight.” She said affectionately before she and her husband retired to their room. Your father put a hand on your mother’s shoulder.

“Cora…”

“I’m staying here.” She pulled up a chair beside Tom.

“Dr. Clarkson said-”

“I’m sure Dr. Clarkson has no quarrels with her mother staying with her.” Dr. Clarkson, of course, had no argument as long as Y/N was able to rest.

“Mama, at least change into something more comfortable.” You instructed. She was still in her dinner clothes and you would hate for her to try and sleep in them. They could be dreadfully uncomfortable. After a moment’s hesitation, she agreed and went with your father to their room. Now, you wished to speak to your husband. “Sybil, Dr. Clarkson, would you mind stepping out? I would like to have a moment with Tom.”

“Of course, dear.” Sybil dipped the cool cloth in the water before returning it to your forehead. Once the two were gone, you could see Tom’s resolve begin to crack. His shaking hand brought yours up and held it against his cheek.

“Y-you must get better, my love.” He stammered, kissing your palm. He held back a sob. Tom was a strong man, but he was not one to hide his emotions for long. It broke your heart to see him like this.

“My dear, you mustn’t shed tears for me.” You soothed, brushing a fallen tear away with your delicate fingers. “Everything is going to be alright.” You didn’t dare show him the fear that was slowly consuming you. You didn’t want to die. You hadn’t lived enough to die now. You wanted to grow old with the man you loved, to have a big family in Ireland and to watch your children run in the fields. You wanted to gather every Christmas and teach them songs. You wanted to kiss your children goodnight before falling asleep in your husband’s arms.

“This is all my fault.” Tom uttered, now gently kissing the inside of your wrist. “Those women… they were right.” Abigail Winston’s words still cut deeply into his heart. “If I hadn’t taken you… if you had stayed here, at home with your family, this wouldn’t have happened. I should have cared for you, kept you safe. I should have-”

“Tom, stop this.” You sat up, fighting the heaviness in your limbs and ignoring your pounding head. “Those petulant girls know nothing but the comfort of their spoiled, insignificant lives. Their cruel hearts could never hold a love like the love I have for you. Whatever they have said came from a place of hatred and jealousy. This illness is in no way your fault, my darling.”

“But if I hadn’t taken you from your home-”

“Downton isn’t my home, Tom.” You smiled. “My home is by your side, no matter where we are. My heart will always belong with you.” Tom mustered a small smile and pulled you into his arms.

Dr. Clarkson and Sybil came back in, along with your mother. You were saddened by your father’s absence. You had hoped to mend your relationship if the worst should happen. Sybil continued cooling your arms and face with the water while Dr. Clarkson looked over his notes to find anything that could help treat the illness.

“Is it alright for me to lie with her?” Tom begged, wanting to hold you in his arms so that you would not be afraid. Dr. Clarkson gave him a solemn nod. Tom climbed into the bed beside you and you rested your head on his shoulder, his arms wrapped around you.

“Tom, I didn’t have the opportunity to apologize for the behavior of our guests.” Cora began grimly.

“There’s no need, Lady Grantham.”

“I will not allow my family to be spoken to in such a manner.” She gave him a motherly smile and he realized that she meant it. She saw him as part of the family. Aside from Dr. Clarkson and Sybil’s murmurs to each other, the room fell silent. Exhausted from a hectic and emotional night, both Cora and Tom fell asleep, your mother resting her head on your hand and your husband holding onto you as if he alone could keep you from drifting away into the dark.

You too closed your eyes, but only for an hour or so. When you opened them, Dr. Clarkson had gone- back to the hospital for supplies- and Sybil was sitting in a chair reading. Standing beside Cora was your father, looking down at you with tears in his eyes. You felt your heart swell with joy. He was here.

“Papa,” You sighed happily, slowly moving your hand so you didn’t wake your mother. You reached it out to him and he took it. “I’m so glad you’re here.”

“Of course I’m here.” He exclaimed. “I could not stay tucked in bed knowing you were suffering.” You felt a surge of emotion and tried to keep your cries quiet so you wouldn’t alarm Sybil.

“Tell me…” You took a shaking breath. “Tell me that we have not severed our ties forever. Tell me that you still hold a place in your heart for the daughter that married the driver.”

“Y/N, sweet girl, while it is not the marriage I would have picked for you, I think of you every day. You never left my heart or my mind. You are my child. My familyYou will always be loved here.” You shared a smile, tears falling onto your cheeks. You looked to your husband.

“Can I ask something of you?”

“Anything you need.” Robert drew closer, leaning so that he could hear you better without you having to raise your voice.

“If I-” You struggled to keep your voice from cracking. “If I don’t wake tomorrow, can you promise me something?”

“Must you talk like that-”

“Please, father.” You pleaded and he nodded. You brushed a stray hair away from Tom’s face, his steady breathing warm on your skin. “If I don’t wake tomorrow, will you care for him? I know he’ll return home, but could you look after him? He’s such a good man, papa.” You turned back to your father, tears coming faster now. “I do not wish for him to feel alone. I want him to be happy, even if it is without me.” You couldn’t not stop the sob that escaped your mouth and Sybil looked up from your reading.

“Y/N, what is it, what’s wrong?”

“Please promise, father.” You begged. “Please say you’ll take care of him.” Robert clutched your hand tightly.

“I promise.” You shared a quiet, tearful moment and knew that all was well between you. If you should succumb to your fever, at least you knew you were with the people you loved and who loved you in return. With that comfort, you closed your eyes and fell asleep.

Tom woke to the bright sun shining through the windows and the feeling of his wife’s cold skin. The complete terror that raced through him nearly stopped his heart. People were rushing around him, pulling him out of the bed and away from you. Cora was rushed out of the room before she even knew what was going on.

“Let me go.” Tom begged, his voice barely above a whisper. He couldn’t speak correctly, unable to breathe. “Y/N. What’s wrong with her? Y/N!” Regaining his voice he began to shout, struggling against the servant that was holding him. “Sybil, what’s wrong? What’s going on? Let me go!”

“Turn her on her side.” Sybil instructed Anna. Dr. Clarkson was in a panic.

“There’s too many people in here.” He exclaimed. He didn’t have time to be sympathetic. Sybil looked at Tom.

“I’m sorry, but you have to go.” She nodded at the servant holding him and he was dragged from the room.

“No! I won’t leave her!!” He cried, fighting as hard as he could. He was sure he punched Thomas, but more servants were able to get a hold of him and pull him out. “She’s my wife, let me go! Y/N!” The door was slammed in his face and he desperately pounded his fist against the wood. “Let me in! Sybil, let me in!”

“What is it? What’s happened?” Mary emerged from her room at the commotion, Matthew joining her. Cora was right beside him, begging her daughter to let her in the room.

“Something’s wrong, they said we had to leave. She looked so pale.” Cora was starting to break into hysterics. She couldn’t lose her baby.

“Oh god, Y/N!” Tom yelled again, banging on the door. Anna was barely able to get out without him pushing passed her.

“Mr. Branson, Lady Grantham, Dr. Clarkson and Sybil need you to wait in the library until someone comes and finds you.” She felt strange, giving commands to Lady Grantham, but Sybil had specifically instructed her. Before either of them could argue, she added. “They can’t help her unless you let them. Please.”

“Mama, we must let them work.” Mary pleaded, taking her mother’s hands. Her worried gaze switched to her brother-in-law. “Tom, we have to go.”

“I won’t leave her.” He sobbed.

“You’re not leaving her. You’re letting them help her.”

He finally complied, following them down into the library while other members of the family slowly filed in. They all rushed to comfort Cora, only Matthew noticing when he slipped out of the room. He took refuge in one of the staircases that the servants used. The stairs he once used. In the silence, he sat down on a step and broke down. He gripped the railing, his body shaking it with his sobs. He thought he was alone.

“Forgive me, I did not know you were in here.” Mrs. Hughes said suddenly, though she made no move to leave. Instead, she sat down beside him. There, in that staircase, he was just Mr. Branson- the rebellious chauffeur who brought so much love to this house- and he was about to lose his wife. “Poor lad.” She sighed, putting a hand on his shoulder. He leaned into her touch and found himself curling up beside her like a young boy crying to his mother. And she let him cry.

It seemed like years had passed when Matthew opened the door. Tom was unable to read his expression.

“Come quickly.” Was all he said. Tom didn’t wait for anything else. Outside the door, Cora stood, crying heavily. Tom tried to brace himself as he went in. He immediately fell to his knees beside the bed.

You smiled at him, the color and warmth slowly starting to return to your face.

“She’s going to be alright.” Dr. Clarkson informed happily. Tom pulled you into his embrace, both of you crying with relief. You pushed back slightly.

“Perhaps we can go home now?” You laughed lightly. Tom put his hand on your cheek, looking into your eyes.

“My darling,” He gently kissed your lips, “you are my home.”

General Tag: @rae-gar-targaryen; @takemepedropascal; @childhood-imagination; @mylovegoesto;

#i'm a sap #tom branson x reader #allen leech #tom branson #cora crawley #Mary Crawley #mrs. hughes #robert crawley #downton abbey #downton abbey imagine

227 notes · View notes

a-mended-pact · 3 years

Text

Unsteady Keys: Chapter 9

A/n: Hey everyone. I hope you're all doing well. I'm pretty proud of this chapter. Please let me know what you think.

Warnings: this chapter does contain flashbacks, mentions of slightly toxic relationships. Mentions of Spencer's mom. Panic attacks. If there are anything more to add let me know

Requests are open

Word count : 3,024

It's been a couple of hours since we've gotten to work. I couldn't find Spencer anywhere. I needed to tell him that there was a lead on Lindsey due to Simmons giving Ethan a cognitive interview. I had called him a handful of times and gotten no answer. Which is weird but with everything that's happened he has every right to have some alone time. I was still trying to call him when I found him in Morgan's old office. I don't know why I checked the cafeteria and the break room first. I felt myself facepalm as I looked around the room.

He was in a daze and hadn't even noticed my presence until I moved myself into the floor across from him. I leaned against the desk for support as I looked up at him. He glanced at me and then looked away. The hand he was using to prop his head up seemed to tense.

'You smell like mint and your cologne.' I said it with a small amount of amusement. I knew he would change. It didn't bother me if anything. I'm surprised he even went to work with the smell of my essence laced into his skin and his breath. He nodded to acknowledge what I had said.

'Love? Is everything alright?' He looked at me then and held my gaze. 'I know I said I'd talk to Ethan too but I can't seem to bring myself to. Seeing him for longer than a couple of hours has me remembering things with him so intensely.'

A soft comforting smile formed on my face as I gently grabbed the hand that rested on his knee and squeezed. 'There's a lead on Lindsey. I was going to leave with the rest of the team to go check it out. If you wanna stay here I can tell Em. Maybe you can get something more from Ethan. Then Matt did. ' I kissed his forehead gently.

Just like that. I left him to his own devices letting him figure everything out for himself. I was gonna need to tell Em he wasn't coming.

-------------

I walked into the interrogation room with Ethan and undid his handcuffs immediately. I didn't like seeing him like an unsub. So until further evidence came about I wasn't going to treat him as such.

'You look like you've seen a ghost Reid. What's wrong?' I looked at him as I stood against the wall. 'Did- did you?- ' I found myself stuttering and searching for words. My hands moved about as if I were trying to grasp each word that flew around my mind until it formed a sentence. How do you speak to someone that you haven't spoken to in years? Not in depth anyway.

'You're a big hot shot Mr. FBI. Married, professor most likely with a couple books published or at least articles and yet you are still just the same man I adored back then.' He spoke with care and love in his voice as he watched my face blanch at what he said.

If it wasn't for the fact he has seen me this way before I would have been far more embarrassed then I was. My mouth was still opening and closing and my hands had finally stopped. 'Did you? Was it you? I- was it you that hurt me? With the blade?'

I had finally managed to collect my words and form a complete sentence even if it was laced with fear and sorrow. I was terrified he'd say yes. I was even more petrified if he said no. If he hadn't done it then I'd have nothing to hold against him.

There was no way I could remain upset about something that happened in college and it wouldn't make me seem like an upset child. I hadn't bothered to meet Ethan's eyes. I was honestly too afraid of what he'd see residing in my own.

I didn't hear him move and I didn't notice how close he got until he spoke. Making me jump and look out of the two way glass. This was a bad idea. I need to get out of here. I feel like the room is shrinking.

Ethan cupped my face and forced me to look at him. The fact that this was being recorded made me even more nervous. What if the rest of the team found out what happened between us.

I finally met his gaze. I knew my eyes probably reminded him of the first time he ever hurt me. This time had nothing to do with the kiss I walked in on years ago.

'Spencer.' As he spoke his thumb traced my jaw. 'I would never. I could never hurt you.' I laughed bitterly and flinched when his thumb met the side of my lips. 'This was a mistake. I - I need some fresh air'. I quickly rushed out, locking the door behind me.

I blew out a breath I didn't realize I was holding within my lungs as I felt my breathing start to quicken. I made my way to the roof of the building that no one really used. I slid down the door as I made it fully outside.

I watched as the sun began to set. The sky turned different colors until emerging me in full darkness besides for the buildings lights I closed my eyes. Why do I feel like a young adult all over again? Why am I letting him get under my skin? The worst part was that he isn't even trying to make me feel like this.

One minute I was on the rooftop the next I was in the band room of our college laying on the ground with my head resting on Ethan's jacket as he played the piano.

'I could fall asleep to the sound of you playing. You know.' I said as each key played from his fingertips. His cologne was all over me because we may or may not have been making out on the floor before I scolded him that he needed to practice. He had a big concert event coming up.

'I could think of better things to do in here than you falling asleep.' His voice was teasing, making me blush. It had only been a few weeks since our first actual time together and in all honesty it made me nervous just thinking about it. Ethan seemed to want to sleep together constantly. Which is fine. I loved having sex with him but sex was never something I thought I'd experience so I'd much rather be reading or learning something new.

Just the other day we got into an argument because I turned him down.

I was sitting in a lecture with the man that created the Behavioral Analysis Unit. The BAU for short. At the time, I didn't want to get laid. I wanted to learn more about how learning to understand a serial killer could help catch them. I was deeply intrigued and asked many questions as the lecture hall went on.

'You know you did ditch me for some cop I don't see why now would be a bad time to make up for it?

'A federal Agent is hardly a cop and if you can't remember his job at least remember his name. Jason Gideon.'

Ethan scoffed in small annoyance as he continued to play. Only this time the sound of the piano sounded like chase music. I felt like it should play in Tom and Jerry.

'You can't seriously be upset with me about that?' I said trying to sound calm and collected in reality I was upset. I originally went to college to learn all the things needed to be someone that taught others. I had been debating on changing my career path for sometime now and I think I finally found it.

'I think I wanna try to join the BAU. Gideon already told me with how interested I was in the lecture and with how smart I am. I'd make a great addition to the team.'

He smashed his fingers on the piano and groaned. 'Reid we already planned our future together. Do you really wanna give that up to join the FBI?' The way he looked at me was as if I had broken his heart. It's not that I had forgotten our plans after college. The only problem was that I used to be able to see that future and now I couldn't.

Since the class with Gideon and all the research I've done. Working for the FBI just made sense. It would cover everything for my mother's doctor's and Care facility. Plus being able to keep a great roof over my head and food in my belly. I suppose to Ethan not living life on the edge was boring.

I shook my head to escape the memory. Out of all the ones to have right now, why did that one resurface? My head fell in my hands as I combed my hair out of my face. My phone went off with a text from Y/n.

'Hey, so we found her abandoned hideout but it looks like she hasn't been here in a bit. I don't know if you've gone to see him or not but I figured you could maybe get more info? If you're feeling up to it of course. Otherwise he made a bond with Matt. He can try again when we get back.'

I sighed. I wasn't in the mood to see him again. I thought I could separate my feelings towards him from this case and I know I'm not doing it. Perhaps I should step back from this case. I should talk to Emily. I know I'd still have to deal with Cat ever so often but otherwise she was my wife's problem now. I slipped my phone back in my pocket and closed my eyes. Everything just seemed like too much right now.

'Seriously we are not doing this right now Ethan?' I was putting back on my clothes. Situating my hair as well. 'You are not going to make me late. I refuse to miss seeing my mother again because you can't not want to sleep with me when we are alone.'

I walked around him as I grabbed my bag to take with me to go see my mom. It held some overnight clothes. I had missed the last time they were going to allow me to stay. All because I gave in to Ethan's advances to make him happy. I loved him and when we weren't bickering things were fabulous. After a year of it though it's exhausting.

He caught me by my hips and pulled me to him. I swatted his hands away. He may not have wanted anything from me but a proper goodbye but I didn't want to give him the chance. I had already prepared myself mentally for the arguing that was gonna come from me turning him down. Me leaving him alone for long periods of time made me nervous.

He'd never done anything to make me anxious about leaving him. He'd only go to bars and play and have a couple of drinks with other musicians. I had accompanied him plenty of times. Nothing ever happened besides musicians talking about anything and everything underneath the shitty neon lights of the bar.

'Tell your mom I said hi and that I hope she's doing well. Also tell her I'm sorry I kept you away last time. I don't know what came over me. ' He cupped my face and went to kiss me but I turned my head slightly. Again. I'm not taking any chances. I'd happily lose anyone or anything as long as I still had my mom. He ended up kissing my cheek.

A sigh escaped him as he let me go. 'I'll see you when you get back. Yeah?' I nodded and smiled at him as I headed toward the door.

'Wait, Reid. I'll be going out tonight to play. I'll message you when I arrive and when I leave. I know how you worry. Tell me when you make it to your mom's. I love you. ' I smiled as I ran off to see my mom.

A groan escaped me. Why? I'm so sick of these memories coming up. I looked around the roof and let out another sigh. I really need to let what happens next go. Yet before I could stop my brain it quickly wraps me and surrounds me in the memory and as it unfolds like a movie before my very eyes. I kept my vision from blurring from the unleashed tears.

Time with my mom had gone by well from when I got there until now. She started having a violent episode one that if I had stayed would have ended in her calling me crash again. I'd never tell her she'd hit me. I just wanted comfort. So I came home early. Well to a place Ethan and I were renting together. I hadn't told him I was on my way home. So when I came home to an empty place I wasn't surprised. I quickly dropped off my things and ran to where I figured he'd be. The bar with his friends. It was rare anyone would be there right now actually drinking; they should just be setting their instruments.

Only when I came in I found Ethan behind stage with a girl's tongue shoved down his throat. There clothes slightly askew He pushed her away when he realized I was there. 'Spencer this isn't what It looks like!'

I just stood there frozen. I couldn't form a word, I could barely comprehend what I saw. When he stepped towards me. I turned away and just walked away. I felt like my heart had just been stomped into the ground after being clawed at unintentionally by my mother. I was broken.

That night I got multiple calls and texts from Ethan. I ignored them all. I ended up sleeping on a campus bench. Comfy truly.

I never fully spoke to Ethan after that day. Things with my mom got chaotic and I didn't have the time to focus on anything but getting my PhD and taking care of my mom. As long as I was busy I couldn't blame myself that I was too afraid to face Ethan. He broke my heart and I didn't even give him the opportunity to even try to explain himself.

That was ages ago though so why am I still thinking about it. Why won't my brain just shut up. I need to get back Inside. Maybe the team is back by now.

------------

Having to find Spencer recently was starting to become a habit. I looked everywhere for him everywhere besides outside. I finally found him walking in from the stairway that led to the roof.

'Hey.' I gave him a small wave and what I hoped was a reassuring smile. This case was getting to him for obvious reasons. He honestly hasn't looked this distraught since after he came back from prison.

His eyes widened slightly. 'Good you're all back already then?' I nodded. My eyes didn't want to leave him. I knew something had happened. I just didn't know what. Pushing him was never something I had done and I wasn't gonna start now. Maybe I'll just bring it up a little to see if he decides to tell me. If not then it can wait until he sorts out his mind.

'So we didn't find Lindsey. We did find a couple of things though. Photos of you in Mexico. Photos of you even in the prison yard. Among others of max and you and us together. Lindsey appears to be stalking us. Maybe it was something Cat asked her to do. Or maybe Ethan was the one taking some of the photos.' I looked away and was staring at my hands as my brain started putting small pieces together. Theories really.

Spencer grabbed my hand gently and brought it up so I'd follow it with my eyes. 'I am actually debating on taking a step back from this case. I was gonna tell Emily and see what she thought.' The smile he gave me didn't reach his eyes.

'Let's be honest it's probably for the best that I do. I know too much and I am far too involved, especially with Cat and Ethan both being a part of this. It's just more than I think I can handle. I could be wrong. Maybe I just need a day to breathe. I'll have to figure that out though.'

He placed my hand on his face and all I could do was rub my thumb across his jaw. I let out a small laugh suddenly. Which surprised him. 'I'm sorry it's not funny! I just kept thinking that If I pushed hard enough on your jawline would it cut me?' It was a terrible time for me to not be able to keep things to myself. He needed me serious, right?

A laugh bellowed out of him and I could see some of the stress and pain he was carrying with him lift a little. I myself smiled too when he pulled me into his chest. 'Oh how I love you and your random thoughts.' He moved his hand to cup my cheek and leaned in as if he were gonna kiss me.

One of our arrangements when we started dating was no PDA in the workplace if any, keep it always at a minimum. With what he was doing it was making me question if he was about to break that small rule. Not that I minded if he did or not though.

He stroked my cheek and smiled at me as he pecked the tip of my nose and walked away.

I couldn't help but scrunch up my nose the way a bunny would. It tickled. A smile formed on my face as I watched him leave.

Taglist:

@sassymoon @rainsong01 @onlyhereforthefanfics @itsdars @dreatine

#unsteady keys #criminal minds #criminal minds fanfiction #spencer reid fanfiction #spencer x reader #spencer x you

8 notes · View notes

yeli-renrong · 4 years

Note

I remember the phrase "sound it out" from school, and I vaguely remember learning something about long & short vowels or such and to (on Between the Lions) but I don't think I ever understood that or paid it any thought since there were so many exceptions. of course, that doesn't mean it didn't do me any good, just that I didn't consciously recognize that it did (perhaps explaining what non-phonic approaches to teaching reading could be contemplated to begin with?)

One non-phonic approach to reading instruction is based on the belief that reading is a process of integration of syntactic, semantic, and graphic (i.e. whole word shape) cues -- in other words, a series of context-based guesses. This model has no allowance at all for the fact that spelling isn’t completely irregular -- as far as it’s concerned, the English alphabet may as well be a logography!

The paper that originally laid out this model (doi:10.1080/19388076709556976) can speak for itself:

Simply stated, the common sense notion I seek here to refute is this: “Reading is a precise process. It involves exact, detailed, sequential perception and identification of letters, words, spelling patterns and larger language units.”

In phonic centered approaches to reading, the preoccupation is with precise letter identification. In word centered approaches, the focus is on word identification. Known words are sight words, precisely named in any setting.

This is not to say that those who have worked diligently in the field of reading are not aware that reading is more than precise, sequential identification. But, the common sense notion, though not adequate, continues to permeate thinking about reading.

Spache presents a word version of this common sense view: “Thus, in its simplest form, reading may be considered a series of word perceptions.”

The teacher's manual of the Lippincott Basic Reading incorporates a letter by letter variant in the justification of its reading approach: “In short, following this program the child learns from the beginning to see words exactly as the most skillful readers see them . . . as whole images of complete words with all their letters.” In place of this misconception, I offer this: “Reading is a selective process. It involves partial use of available minimal language cues selected from perceptual input on the basis of the reader's expectation. As this partial information is processed, tentative decisions are made to be confirmed, rejected or refined as reading progresses.” More simply stated, reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game. It involves an interaction between thought and language. Efficient reading does not result from precise perception and identification of all elements, but from skill in selecting the fewest, most productive cues necessary to produce guesses which are right the first time.

The argument in favor of this position is... a handful of case studies of reading errors made by young children! (And some Chomskyist stuff that I don’t care to work through.) And Ken Goodman, the author of the paper quoted above and one of the major proponents of ‘whole-language theory’, had some studies to back this up:

In a study conducted by Goodman (1965), students in grades 1-3 first read lists of words. Then the children were presented the same words to read in meaningful text. The students made many more errors when they read the words out of context (i.e., when the words were in lists) than they did when the words were read in context. This, of course, is consistent with the hypothesis that reading will be facilitated when semantic-contextual and syntactic-contextual cues are present (i.e., when words are read as part of a text) compared to when words are read devoid of context cues (i.e., when words are read on lists). This finding has been used repeatedly to defend the meaning-emphasis practice of teaching students to recognize words by analyzing syntactic, graphemic-phonemic, and especially semantic cues.

Nicholson (1991) detected several very serious shortcomings in the Goodman (1965) study, however. First, no attention was paid in the Goodman (1965) investigation of the patterns of performance by good and poor readers. In addition, the participants always read the lists followed by reading of the words in context, and thus there was the possibility that the improved performance in moving from list reading to reading in context might reflect some type of practice effect (i.e., the words in context had been seen before, on the lists).

In Nicholson (1991), students once again were asked to process words in lists and in context. In this study, however, the list-context order was manipulated such that some participants read the lists first and others read the words in context first. Moreover, the study included systematic analysis of reading as a function of the grade of participants and their reading abilities relative to other students (i.e., good, average, weak). The outcomes in this study were anything but consistent with Goodman's (1965) results:

- Some readers did benefit from reading the words in the sentence context -- namely, poor readers at each age level and average 6- and 7-year-olds. - In context, a positive effect on reading was obtained in sentence context for good 6-year-old readers and average 8-year-olds only when reading words in sentence contexts followed reading words in lists, consistent with the practice effect explanation of the original Goodman (1965) finding. - There was no positive effect derived from reading words in context for good 7- and 8-year-old readers. Indeed, when the 8-year-old good readers did sentence-context reading first, they did better on reading of the words in list format.

Oops!

In very simple terms: how do you prompt a student who’s struggling with a word -- “Sound it out!” or “Context clues!” (The teachers I had always said clues instead of cues; I don’t know if that was because children would be more likely to know the former word or if someone misread it somewhere in the chain of transmission.) And there are a few problems with that:

- No attention is paid to the process of encoding. Even if treating words as logograms whose readings are to be inferred from context works to teach children to read (it doesn’t), how are they supposed to learn to write? (At the height of whole-language theory’s influence, some states banned public schools from buying spelling books.)

- What happens if you hit a proper noun? Take the following sentence: “Notably, Ross' classification does not support the ☃☃☃☃ of the Tsouic languages, instead considering the Southern Tsouic languages of Kanakanavu and Saaroa to be a separate branch.” Context cues let you extract meaning from this sentence without knowing the reading of ☃☃☃☃, but if you have to read it aloud and you can’t sound things out, you’ll hit “Kanakanavu” and produce garble. (You might still be wrong even if you can sound it out, because stress is unwritten and English words aren’t marked for which rule-set to use -- consider the words alveolar and maraschino -- but there’s a difference between being wrong and producing garble. Garble will probably accurately represent the cues, including the vague, impressionistic shape of the word, but a stress or rule-set error will at least convey the spelling. Buegehti for Buttigieg is a good example of garble -- you have the word-shape cues (starts with Bu, most of the letters are there) and the semantic cues (weird surname from the periphery of Europe; I assume Buegehti is pseudo-Finnish), but it’s not even close, and probably unrecoverable without context. (So contextual information isn’t totally useless.)

- Even if the relevant actors were willing to accept lack of attention to spelling and inability to decode phonetic information that context won’t help you with in order to get gains in reading ability... there are no gains.

But, as things do, whole-language theory got a lot wackier from there. Its proponents started referencing Chomsky’s language instinct to posit a reading instinct, which, the theory went, would lead children to automatically acquire reading with no instruction necessary (except highly technical facilitation was still considered necessary, because if schoolteachers aren’t essential, what’s the point?); claiming that phonics actually impeded literacy; attacking opponents of their theory as part of a far-right conspiracy to suppress teachers’ freedom and destroy public education; calling whole-language education a ‘revolution’ that would lead to true liberation and model the egalitarian society of the future; and so on.

For example, Shafer 1998:

Over the years, various writers, politicians, and media sources have taken aim at whole language, vilifying its motives and misrepresenting its goals. While many of the attacks have come from a lamentable ignorance on the part of T.V. reporters and talk show hosts, evidence exists that a portion of it has been carefully orchestrated by conservatives who clearly seem threatened by the implications of a whole language curriculum. Indeed, the list of writers who have opposed whole language initiatives reads like a who's who of conservative pundits. William Bennett, Phyllis Schlafly, Cal Thomas, and Chester Finn have all written articles deriding whole language, despite its overwhelming acceptance among academic organizations and respected scholars.

Many theories have been offered as to why whole language has become so partisan and acrimonious - and why conservatives in particular seem threatened by its humanistic objectives. What seems glaringly clear, in the end, is that whole language - with its caveat for student liberation and control - scares people who want to maintain a hierarchical, top-down approach to learning. The threat of whole language, at least from my perspective, lies in its bold challenge to traditional icons and time-honored practices. Some teachers feel intimidated by the notion that their way is not the only way - that their favorite authors shouldn't be their students' favorite authors.

When students cease to be receptacles of information and begin generating their own ideas, they occasionally formulate theories that are disconcerting to those who want to maintain "authority" in the classroom. Thus, the recent controversy over teaching a literary canon and classes in western civilization helps illustrate the result of whole language - where students question rather than absorb - and where learning comes to be a very personal, reflective activity. "To study," argues Paulo Freire, "is not to consume ideas, but to create and recreate them" (4).

(On the same page: “It seems clear that people learn best when they are progressing from whole to part so that they understand the importance of correctness and the viability of certain non-standard dialects in certain settings.” First, what the fuck is this supposed to mean? And second, I can’t see something like “progressing from whole to part” without having flashbacks to the polemics against Hegel from one of my philosophy professors -- the direction of progression and the concomitant assignment of more basic status to that which one progresses from, he said, was what distinguished Hegelian from analytic philosophy, and the Hegelian progression from whole to part underlay all the most prominent horrors of the 20th century. It was hard enough to quibble with that then, but it gets harder every time I see someone try to shore up nonsense with that ‘Hegelian’ formula.)

Edelsky 1993 (doi:10.2307/3587486):

Whole language (WL) is, first of all, a perspective-in-practice, anchored in a vision of an equitable, democratic, diverse society. A WL perspective highlights theoretical and philosophical notions about language and language learning, knowledge, and reality. In a WL perspective, language is an exquisite human tool for making (not finding) meaning. The WL view is that what people learn when they learn a language is not separate parts (words, sounds, sentences) but a supersystem of social practices whose conventions and systematicity both constrain and liberate. And the way people acquire that system or are acquired by it (Gee, 1990) is not through doing exercises so that they can really use it later but rather by actually using it as best they can with others who are using it with them, showing them how it works and what it is for (Smith, 1981). ...

Appropriating the label, the jargon, or the typical materials and activities of WL without taking on the liberatory (and therefore status-quo-disrupting) political vision, and without adopting a WL theoretical perspective, is a sure way to prevent genuine change.

And from the sewer of journalism, Metcalf 2002:

Why the infatuation with testing? For its most conservative enthusiasts, testing makes sense as a lone solution to school failure because, they insist, adequate resources are already in place, and only the threat of exposure and censure is necessary for schools to succeed. Moreover, among those who style themselves "compassionate conservatives," education has become a sentimental and, all things considered, cheap way to talk about equalizing opportunity without committing to substantial income redistribution. Liberal faddishness, not chronic underfunding of poorer schools or child poverty itself, is blamed for underachievement: "Child-centered" education, "progressive" education or "whole language"--each has been singled out as a social menace that can be vanquished only by applying a more rational, results-oriented and business-minded approach to public education. ...

Why is the same conservative constituency that loves testing even more moonstruck by phonics? For starters, phonics is traditional and rote--the pupil begins by sounding out letters, then works through vocabulary drills, then short passages using the learned vocabulary. Furthermore, to teach phonics you need a textbook and usually a series of items--worksheets, tests, teacher's editions--that constitute an elaborate purchase for a school district and a profitable product line for a publisher. In addition, heavily scripted phonics programs are routinely marketed as compensation for bad teachers. (What's not mentioned is that they often repel, and even drive out, good teachers.) Finally, as Gerald Coles, author of Reading Lessons: The Debate Over Literacy, points out, "Phonics is a way of thinking about illiteracy that doesn't involve thinking about larger social injustices. To cure illiteracy, presumably all children need is a new set of textbooks."

Whole-language theory isn’t as popular now as it used to be. But the underlying Lysenkoist tendency has taken strong root in L2 education, which is why most of the people in my second-year German class couldn’t properly decline the definite article.

Sometimes you just have to drill.

15 notes · View notes

kalesandfails · 5 years

Text

i like my body/ and it is not your body

My weekend was great, thanks! I ran ten miles each morning, and running is the closest I get to approximating what it feels like to have properly firing neurons. I listened to two loves of my life, Jon Lovett and Stacy Abrams (about whom I will write more another time, but don’t wait for that; go give her project to resist voter suppression your money here). I read books to the literal piles of humans I have made, dizzy with the sheer acreage of their cheeks. I had a conversation with my autistic preschooler about Ariel — the first proper conversation my daughter has ever initiated with me.

So, I’m doing okay right now, thanks for not asking while I proceed to say some stuff.

I’m saying this not because my voice is the one that needs to be uplifted in a conversation about either fat-shaming or ectopic pregnancies, but because I went to bed thinking about the distressing common thread between the current weird preoccupation of other seemingly uninvolved parties with the two phenomena. And because, while I think James Cordon, God among men, gets this, and I know that other survivors of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and the million other situations in which abortion has been a Godsend — as in, the best option or only tenable option for a specific human being at a specific point in time —I’m just thinking that maybe the people who need to hear it, literally cannot hear it enough, or from enough people, until they have plunked their toned, tailored-suit-wearing man asses into some comfortable seats, ones from which it is somewhat labor-intensive to emerge, and sat a round or two out.

The first is this: you, fat-shamer, and you, pro-lifer who, surprisingly, is willing to “let God decide” if a college student with a fertilized egg threatening to rupture her fallopian tube and kill her should live or not — since the role your God presumably had in supplying the skill and technology to save her life wasn’t a clear enough sign of His will, and despite the fact that God apparently can’t be trusted to supply Her children with appropriate sexual and gender identities — you get a single body and that is your body. And that body, and control of that body, are just going to need to be enough.

Look: there’s no reason to believe that someone who is insulting people over their weight has any strategic goal related to either health or weight loss. To claim otherwise, to walk back your antagonistic bullshit with a sanctimonious “but I’m concerned for [their] health!” : this a is mindbogglingly bad-faith argument. Because the human being you are shaming, or, honestly, any person acquainted with how people feel when you’re shitty to them, will point out that humiliating people and promoting discrimination against them doesn’t effectively motivate them to change their behavior, let alone the physical body they inhabit, and you will say — what, that it should?

At that point, it will become clear that what you, the fat-shamer, want, is for these people to change their bodies in response to your comments about whether or not they can see their penises or get laid or give you an erection; that, basically, what you are doing is doubling down on a system in which if you are a woman, you should feel embarrassed and subhuman if your body is an inadequately hot commodity for the consumption of this unnamed but all-important (male) consumer. (You, right? It’s you to whom we’re trying to make our bodies presentable?)

And if you, the fat-shamed, are a man, your worth is still determined by men, this time the ones who supposedly know how successful you are at getting women to have sex with you based on their opinions of your body, and who have decided that this is the metric by which your worth is established. (Side note: straight guys who know so much about what women want, I’m guessing you don’t want to rethink your premise that your estimation of other guys’ bodies is the one that matters when determining what women find attractive, but it would behoove you to do so. If there were one thing women don’t like (there’s not!), it would be straight guys mansplaining our sexuality to us).

Basically, what fat shaming is about in your sixties (because that is how old Bill Mayer is, friends!) is what fat shaming is about in sixth grade. It’s just one more way that a certain group of people, a group with relatively more power than others and a deep fear of losing it, maintain that power by saying: I am going to tell you what matters, and I am going to tell you whether or not you have that thing that matters, and I am going to make it so painful for you to not have it that you will remake your body to get me off your back, because it is weirdly important to me to exert this control over you.

My furtive eighth grade crush got fat shamed in middle school, and he was pretty fat. But, you know, so did I, and I’ve never had a medical doctor express concern for my weight. Discouragingly, it barely registered with them when I was losing my hair and hadn’t had a period in a year. But other helpful randos, from grandmas to girls in my gymnastics class, started calling me fat at age four, and the only way I was able to stop them was to self-regulate so effectively that by the time I went to college, I was throwing up when I “lost control” and chewed too many pieces of Juicy Fruit.

That’s the goal of fat-shaming, fat-shamers: someone who has accepted your right to tell them who they are and what their worth so unreservedly that she can graduate Phi Beta Kappa on the one hand, but still believe that she is “too fat to sit down” on her graduation night. And — as one person with a running leitmotif I like to call “pathological need for control” running through my adolescence and early adulthood to another —- can I suggest you slow your roll and take a look in your own goddamn mirror?

I can’t speak to why a person might experience exerting control over the bodies of other people as catharsis, why what they need to self regulate is to make someone else feel worthless. I can only imagine that this bullshit behavior comes from the same sense of existential dread that makes two missed days at the gym feel like that a night in one of those sky cells on Game of Thrones to me. But I can be compassionate towards you and also take a hard pass when it comes to “tolerating” your “opinions” about the value of people around you, or your right to patrol the size of their bodies or to determine that they need to be harassed into having a body you like better. Your feeling about thigh gaps or whatever is your deal, but the fact that you think other people should be treated badly or should endanger their health in an effort to make their bodies acceptable to you is also, 100%, your deal, and not the problem or the responsibility of the people in those bodies. Take your body and do whatever you want with it, but shut the mouth part of it first.

Similarly: I’m not going to explain to anyone why a fertilized egg in one’s fallopian tube is 1. not a viable pregnancy and 2. not something to “watchfully wait" over. “Watchful waiting” is appropriate when the risks of intervention are significant, or the benefits unclear, or both. In the very few cases in which this might be what a doctor would advise, that decision is made though a cost-benefit analysis with the mother, because the mother is the patient being treated. There is no “child’s life” to consider because, as with any pregnancy, but maybe especially an entirely nonviable one, there is no child yet.

If you are anything but shocked by the idea that someone should be expected to “wait and see” if their medically treatable and potentially fatal medical condition will kill them or not because of how another person, living in another body, feels about the situation, then you don’t give a shit about life. Not the life of that woman, which you are endangering. Not the lives of any existing children she has or partner she has or parents or students or siblings or friends. What you are saying, again, is that you decide what this woman’s life is worth — and your expectation is that she accept that when it comes down to it, your random feelings about her body both define the value of that body and should be factored into the clinical decision making of her medical provider.

As with our fat-shamers above, I’m just wondering where it came from, this idea that you’re entitled to control the bodies of other human beings, and the weirdly aggressive efforts to do so.

Are you ok, Representative? It seems to me you are not.

It doesn’t even matter that an ectopic pregnancy is not viable. Because pro-life arguments are about “preserving life” the way fat-shaming is about “promoting health”: that is to say, they’re not about that at all. It’s about being unwilling to either take responsibility for working out whatever damage you have, or to acknowledge that the way you are choosing to work that damage out is by violently exerting control over the bodies and lives of others.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want is violent whether that pregnancy is only somewhat likely, as it is in the case of a viable pregnancy carried in a country with the highest material mortality rate in the developed world, or pretty effing likely, as in the case where the pregnancy is lodged in a tube that will not accomodate it. When you legally compel another human being to risk her life carrying a pregnancy in her body because of how you feel, that is violent.

I want to have compassion for you, person who sees no better option than hurting other people to deal with whatever it is life has handed you. I’m something of a poster child for irrational or detractive ways of dealing with the parts of the world I don’t like: see above, where a teenage permutation of me was vomiting gum bile. But I also feel like we don’t serve anyone by looking the other way while they evade the responsibly we all have to handle our own shit.

Certainly you get that, right? If a person’s body size, the pregnancy they carry, their health status, are all issues of personal responsibility, surely you, too, can own up to the fact that you have this thing where, instead of overdoing it at the buffet — or, I don’t know, getting pregnant in the wrong part of your body? — you insist that other people’s bodies should be altered to your specifications, and that you should decide if those bodies are fed, or wear shorts, or receive medical care. You can acknowledge that this is a weirder and less palatable approach to managing your dark feelings than is eating too many carbs or whatever it is you think we’re all doing with our insufficiently controlled, overweight, inconveniently fertile bodies. You can set aside that weight-loss tea you’re sipping and consider that maybe, the one who’s “ready for a change” is you.

#james corden #fatshaming ectopic pregancies bodies

11 notes · View notes

cavaliant · 5 years

Text

Thoughts on Beowolf and Lachesis

Beo/Lach isn't my only ship for either of them (especially since I see them as being fine with open relationships anyway) but the reason it's my favourite, whether it’s romantic or not, is because of how two seemingly very different people can still complement each other and have a good time? It's a cheesy reason BUT...here are my thoughts on their dynamic. At first glance, they look like a prim, proper, kind of haughty princess and a casual, dubious, opportunistic merc. And they CAN be those things, but that's not all they are.

Lachesis is a princess who was born into her position, one who likes stereotypically princess-y things like fancy pink clothes, flowers, and tea parties. But she's also not afraid to work hard and get her hands dirty, and doesn't assume that others will just take care of everything for her. She’s very independent, and hates being told what to do, but is absolutely willing to accept help when she knows she needs it. She's judgmental, but she doesn't judge people for things like their birth or social status--things they have no control over. (She is, however, quick to judge people for their actions/words).

Beowolf, by contrast, is a mercenary, someone who is definitely willing to dirty his hands. He has a direct way of speaking which can border on rude, though most of the time he doesn’t actually mean to cause offence. He gives off a cocky demeanour (just look at his official art lol), but he isn't too proud to apologize or to admit when someone else is better. He can be self-centred and irresponsible, with a devil-may-care attitude, but he can also be perceptive of others’ feelings, and he keeps his promises to those who’ve earned his respect.

In the beginning, Beowolf was just looking out for Lachesis for Eldie's sake, but he grows to be fond of her as her own person. Lachesis has no illusions about his character, and doesn't expect commitment or sappy romance from him. She's fierce, intense, fiery--someone unafraid to go after what she wants. She isn't put off permanently by his attitude or words, nor is she afraid to push right back at him. He grows fond of her, though I don't know that I'd call it romantic love until closer to Belhalla at the very least. Even if he does fall in love with her, he wouldn't do anything to change their friends with benefits arrangement, because it's still working out for the both of them, and he doesn't think he's a "settling down" kind of guy anyway.

Lachesis' first impression of Beowolf was decidedly unimpressed, at least until he mentioned being Eldie's friend and offered to train her. It slides back towards unimpressed again in the face of his "uncouthness" and joking remarks, but she does develop a grudging respect for him as he continues to help her out. (She still definitely wonders what Eldie sees in him more than once, and absolutely grills him to see if his story of being friends with her brother holds up.) Her feelings about Beowolf (in my head) are less likely to develop into love than the other way around, and I don't know if she’d realize it or return the feelings until after Belhalla (after which he’s canonically dead) even if they did become love.

In terms of how they interact...despite Beowolf's occasionally blunt, crude remarks, and Lachesis' sometimes indignant, disparaging comments...I like to think they become some sort of friends. She accepts his offer to train her, they fight together, and they build up a sort of trust. His lack of filter would be annoying sometimes, but also refreshing to someone who grew up around nobles who LOVE to say things other than what they really mean.

It's not that Lachesis doesn't just say what she wants all the time, and damn the consequences...but even if she wouldn't admit it, she'd be just a little envious of someone who doesn't even have to THINK about the consequences of what he says and does. She might even become a tiny bit more relaxed about appearances around him, and even less censoring of her words than usual because she knows he can take it. And he can--though he can get amused when she gets snappy, he also won't hesitate to be brutally honest right back, and is happy to speak with another person who isn’t afraid to say exactly what’s on their mind.

I do think this would lead to arguments between them when their opinions/priorities clash, or when Beowolf says something she deems especially offensive. If you know Lachesis, there's a large chance she will argue with you at least once in your acquaintance because that's just the kind of person she is. Stubborn, passionate, and extremely dedicated to what she thinks is right. Beowolf isn't argumentative by nature, definitely way more laid-back--but he isn't one to cower away or change just to suit someone else. When they're older, I think they'd be a bit more inclined to work things out through talking, but earlier on if they truly have a conflict it's more common for them to bite back at each other. And then have to work it off in spars or spend some time away from each other (possibly with other people) to cool off ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I actually don't see their relationship as one based on deep emotional connection, at least at first, though I do think they have the potential to develop some a LOT farther down the line (post-Belhalla, if Beo survives). It really just starts off as a mutual desire for a little fun, something to take their minds off things with no strings attached. Beowolf is already obviously a guy who's cool with casual hookups (squints at Fergus), and look! Here's another princess he probably shouldn't sleep with that he's probably going to sleep with anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On Lachesis' end, she MIGHT have a vague ideal of a sweeping romance where she lives happily ever after with some dashing, elegant, loyal prince...but I don't think that's how her life actually works out. If you look at her predestineds, none of them are actually "on her level" (nobles) in status, and two of them are even in decidedly dubious professions (thief and mercenary). The last two in particular (Dew and Beowolf) are hardly desirable marriage options for a princess like her, and hardly likely to even stick around for long...but she gets involved anyway. She's not looking for commitment in the beginning, and she doesn't care if her lover is a lawless vagabond, as long as he respects her and gives her a good time.

As I mentioned before, it IS possible for them to fall in love with each other imo, but I think it’d take the wake-up call of Belhalla to even think seriously about that. Of course, by then it’s too late for canon Beowolf--but in my AUs where he survives (or in Heroes), I do think they could develop a more stable, comfortable relationship (though still open because I don’t see either of them as the expected monogamous, “settling down” kind of people). It’s not like I see them as becoming lovey-dovey or even romantic--but I don’t see either of them as being insecure about the other’s feelings here. They know that they respect each other, entertain each other, and that they’ll (usually) be frank about their opinions with each other. They aren’t bothered about distinguishing whether their relationship is a romance or not. It just...is what it is.

It’s also very possible for them to simply remain friends and comrades, with maybe the occasional fling in between, or for them to part ways. Like I said at the beginning, what I like about their dynamic is that they can be very chill and fun together--but it’s also possible for them to be serious and deep. I don't think their relationship is all sunshine and roses, particularly when they disagree on things (and also when Eldigan dies), but I wanted to focus more on why I think they’re compatible and how I imagine their relationship (whether romantic or not) panning out. It’s not an exhaustive analysis, and I know that this is one of the more generous interpretations of both of them, but I'm tired of the old takes of "Beowolf was just lying to get in her pants" and "Lachesis was a cheating ho" and just want to have some fun with them as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So that is why this whole long post is the basis behind the portrayal of their relationship on my blog ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

#i wanna waste all of my time with you (beowolf/lachesis)#beo: hcs #lach: hcs #i am possibly too kind in my interpretations of both of them #but jugdral is depressing enough so :/#i had thoughts about how they deal with eldie's death too but that's a topic for another post maybe lol #this is longer than i intended again...

3 notes · View notes

bluerosesburnblue · 5 years

Note

Heyo! I'm the pro-shipper anon from before, I really enjoyed reading your response! And yeah, what happened to that anon was... Bad. Anyway, your response got me thinking about this post I read not too long ago about canon vs word of god and how things like the author saying things outside of canon and cast interviews and such should not be taken as canon because of a ton of reasons, including the escalation of bullying in fandom and how it leads to poor representation

Hey! Glad to hear it! I know I kind of went off on a tirade, but I felt it was warranted in this scenario. Really hope that anon’s doing alright now and that they get to see that there’s some people out there who support them

And you’re absolutely right! I saw a YouTube video once about how that ties into the Harry Potter fandom, specifically, too. I find literary analysis fascinating (and… took a lot of classes on it in college…) which is, probably, why I’m such a stickler for using the terms properly

The distinction between canon and Word of God is always important to keep in mind when looking at a work. After all, there’s benefit to examining things from different angles. What does the text say vs. what the author says after it’s released? Do the two match? Does the text read one way and the author’s thoughts on their own work read another way?

That’s not to discount authorial intent entirely. Of course authors are entitled to thoughts regarding their own work and those thoughts give new context to the piece at hand. But authors are also human, and therefore, biased. Not always in the negative sense of the word, but one person is only ever able to truly experience the world from their own perspective, no matter how much research they do. It’s a very neutral thing, but also one to consider

Frequently, authors may think that something they implied was obvious only to find that no one but them was able to figure out what they were saying. Or they may find that something had connotations that they hadn’t considered at all. Some just use Word of God as a way to state what they were thinking but intentionally leave it open to interpretation in the text. Sometimes they change their minds after the fact because, again, they’re human. Regardless, once something’s out there it’s now divorced from the author’s mind and left up to the thousands or millions of minds that see it afterwards, each of whom comes in with their own unique little life experiences that figuratively paint in the lines that the author laid down

There’s merit to separating the author from the text. There’s merit to comparing and contrasting the two. But I think it’s important to understand the difference between them. To know where the author’s thoughts on the subject end and where your own begin

That applies to any creative. Authors, actors, singers/songwriters/composers, artists, game writers and developers… once that work is in the public it’s out of their hands

Or at least, it used to be. Nowadays, declaring something as “canon” has sort of become a way for people to try and assert their own reading as “correct,” and they’ll use any “source” no matter how tangentially tied to the product it is to justify it. It’s kind of ruining the magic of art, to be honest

The video I mentioned made the argument that this trend might have even started with JK Rowling, who was one of the first popular authors to be accepting and supporting of fanworks. Previously, authors could be very controlling of their works post-publication, and this was widely ignored by fandom. The separation of authorial intent and canon was more clearly defined. But JK made herself approachable to the fanbase, and so they started asking her questions regarding her work and she was happy to answer. And they were happy to accept her answers, and to just be acknowledged by their favorite author. Once people realized that that was an effective way to build a fanbase for your work, they started getting in on it. The advent of social media only made it easier to get in contact with your favorite creatives and ask them what their opinion of the subject was

This snowballed into what we have today. People stopped appreciating their own interpretations of a work because they could just ask someone who they felt had more authority on the subject what they had intended. The author’s word started gaining more and more importance until it was eventually seen as being equal to the text

And then people started realizing the problems with that. Because yeah, it definitely started leading to bullying and poor representation

Because why bother actually researching a controversial topic when you can say afterwards that a character was [X] minority and get just as much credit without having to worry about any of the backlash for potentially portraying it poorly? When people will just applaud you for being so inclusive while you sit there and spend zero effort on properly researching and interviewing the people you’re claiming to represent? And then that becomes a trend

Luckily, that one’s starting to get some flack if the reactions to JK’s Twitter are anything to go by. But the bullying problem is still unfortunately very prevalent. People take their media seriously. They put a whole part of themselves into the experience, and they make it unique. Well-written works make you feel like the character’s lived experiences are your own. There’s a good reason why the concept of fandom is as big as it is

But in the age of social media, it’s also very easy to find people who disagree with you, even accidentally. And in a way, given how deeply some people get invested in fiction, that can feel like a personal attack. And, ironically enough, it depersonalizes the opposition because you can’t see their face or hear their tone most of the time. And so people feel threatened, they get protective of “their canon,” and they look to an authority to defend them

And 9 times out of 10, that author or actor or whoever has no idea of the context they’re being asked this under, so they agree with the fan who asked because they’re legitimately trying to be supportive of the fanbase. And that answer gets used as a weapon. Or sometimes it backfires on the original asker and the other side now gets to use it as a weapon. And the vicious cycle repeats

I’d say “I could write a whole essay on the subject” but uhhhh… oops? Anyway, yes. Canon, fanon, Word of God, authorial intent, Death of the Author… all important things to know the proper definitions of when discussiong creative works. I think if people did there’d be less fighting in fandom, just in general. Then, hopefully, it could become a group of appreciation for shared things that make us happy and respect for the differences in each person’s life that they bring to the table instead of… the actual mess it’s become, you know?

#liz answers #anon asks #long post

10 notes · View notes

etsessayprompts819 · 4 years

Video

youtube

custom writer

About me

Outside Group Executed Stealth Writing Campaign To Turn Out Democrat Absentees

Outside Group Executed Stealth Writing Campaign To Turn Out Democrat Absentees The paper is a small one, however very carefully written. I cannot even categorical how grateful I am to the author. After approving the draft, you'll receive your paper in an editable format. Track the progress, utilizing our handy online chat, and be ready to reply further questions of the assigned writer. I wasn’t really positive about letting my cash out of my pocket; I didn’t truly trust getting assist with essay writing. But my fears have been proved mistaken by Management Writing Solutions, and I’m eternally a fan of their work. All of papers you get at Ewriters.pro are meant for research purposes only. All of papers you get at Termpaperwriter.org are meant for analysis functions solely. We have an incredible refund coverage that ensures that prospects are protected. We grant refunds to prospects if the work delivered did not meet the specific necessities laid out. Also if the standard of the work is under the expected standards, the client is entitled to a full refund. Let us let you know what locations us among the many high reliable essay writing sites within the industry. At Management Writing Solutions, uncompromised high quality and cheap essays, goes hand in hand. We promise you with one of the best worth for cash in the complete trade. Luckily, I found MWS and placed the order for my essay. Writing a college essay should not be a hassle for me. I was on the verge of 1 because the deadline slipped nearer for my dissertation. You are the one dissertation writing service that I select and recommend. Writing services supplied by our company won't ever allow you to down. Every essay written has to move our plagiarism software. Our group then checks it, and there may be not an opportunity of it as it's manually written, and we don't republish any essay. You can verify our customer’s feedback and the samples of our essay, and it will showcase our high quality. When you place order on the website within 2-4 hours, a writer based mostly on our staff choice is assigned to you. You can give the author your questions concerning the essay or let them know if there is anything particular you want to be mentioned. I even have been working along with your service for sometime now and I adore it. Working two jobs and school was getting the best of me. Authentic papers written from scratch per your directions, free plagiarism report. Unlimited revisions – your writer does not receives a commission till you might be joyful along with your paper. Beyond this, we even have a refund and revision coverage that explains clearly the steps we take to make it proper if certainly one of our writers omits any of your necessities. We need you to know that we now have your again so you can really feel protected ordering with us from beginning to finish. We protect your knowledge, and our essay service won't ever promote your information to any third get together. Your personal data stays safe, and we take the identical steps to guard your paper. Also, in the case of a cancellation by the college or if the customer fails to download the paper as soon as we now have made it obtainable they may obtain a refund. Our paper author assistance is among the greatest available in the market due to the next attributes. Log in to your account to oversee the writing progress and chat with the author. Consider these providers as an extra option to streamline the writing course of and enhance the ultimate end result. You can choose as many extra companies as you want. Looking for a compelling argumentative essay on the internet? Hire a writer to create an authentic essay just for you. Experts write all papers from scratch and verify the content for plagiarism with superior software. We guarantee a hundred% originality of each textual content and might show it with a detailed plagiarism report. I was utterly out of my mind determining tips on how to write a university essay. In addition to that, we hardly ever fail to meet a deadline. Another thing about us is – not a shred of plagiarized content is there in our papers. That, in a nutshell, makes us the top essay assist there's. We check for typographical and grammatical errors along with plagiarism.

0 notes

extendedessayexamples998 · 4 years

Video

youtube

buy research paper

About me

Buy Research Papers

Buy Research Papers Transition phrases and phrases in educational writing Transition words and phrases hyperlink together different concepts in your text. Using them successfully helps the reader to observe your arguments. How to put in writing subject sentences A subject sentence sums up the main level of every paragraph. Use matter sentences to structure your ideas and keep your paragraphs centered. Be particular in regards to the matter of the paper, introduce the background, and outline key terms or concepts. Paragraphs are the essential building blocks of analysis papers. Each one should focus on a single declare or concept that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper. A construction outline may help make the writing process far more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating a while to create one. Note any discussions that appear necessary to the subject, and attempt to find a difficulty that you could focus your paper around. You're allowed to include opinions of your own, however they must even be supported by the analysis you give. Below are 113 good analysis matters that will help you get you began on your paper. Use a wide range of sources, including journals, books and dependable websites, to ensure you do not miss something obtrusive. You can attempt free writing, which includes taking a broad matter and writing continuously for 2 or three minutes to determine absolutely anything relevant that could be fascinating. step-by-step guide takes you thru the entire writing process, from understanding your task to proofreading your final draft. Remember, it is a research paper you are writing, so you will want to make use of lots of research to make your points. Every assertion you give have to be backed up with research, correctly cited the way in which your teacher requested. Confirm that your paper completes every task laid out in your project sheet. Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, extra importantly, that your paper still solutions the assignment. Similarly, the word, the dissertation has been derived from the Latin word dissertation. In addition to that, the required minimal study interval additionally varies significantly as per requirement. assignments and are facing points when completing your educational task associated to high quality or deadline. For this, we need to access the model value of the corporate. We have to examine buyer rankings and social media presence. When we're talking about the firm's social media presence, we should always check how nicely an organization responds to a grievance. If the complaint handling is completed efficiently, it brings a way of trust and faith in the company. We've organized them into ten categories to make it easier to search out the kind of analysis paper subjects you're on the lookout for. Usually the completed paper will be sent to you as an MS Word document. If you've requested graphs, statistics tables and so forth, these might be included in the paper. You can select the type of referencing which you prefer; please click on the Referencing tab to read extra about this. We do assure the very best standards of the papers we produce. Apart from that, it should present proper citation and reference links and not contain copyright points afterward. Another aspect ought to be that it should not have duplicated the previous assignments passed on to different shoppers. We have entered a progressive era the place we spend most of our time browsing the world broad internet. Everything can be accessed on our fingertips, all the companies are in cut-throat competitors, and due to this, it turns into a bit tricky to determine an accurate service. And in this method, we will perceive the worth of the corporate, whether or not the market notion is sweet or unhealthy. The time period, a thesis has been derived from the Greek word, “θέσις”, that refers to the mental proposition and means something put forth.

0 notes

marxistduboisist · 6 years

Text

Comments on “Where’s the Winter Palace”

I have two main critiques of this interesting but, I argue, ultimately unpersuasive essay on the Marxist-Leninist movement in the US. This note grew out of a Facebook comment, and it presumes familiarity with the general subject as well as the essay linked above. I left aside several other critiques which were made by other people on the thread, so this is an incomplete critique.

First, I found the critique of line-centrism (laid out in "Dogmatism and 'Line'") less than persuasive; I thought it misidentified the cause of the NCM’s failing in the first place (here I disagree with Max Elbaum who is the original source for this claim); applies with far less force to the Marxist-Leninist movement at present than it did to the NCM; and, finally, is unrealistic in the sense that it takes an unfortunate truth about large group organization, Marxist-Leninist or otherwise (that the determination of some kind of a minimal line and the holding of it is crucially necessary to effective politics and will also never satisfy every individual party member entirely) and makes it an avoidable, volitional failure borne of dogmatism (whereas I think it is just a feature of doing politics as such); I also think that the argument that certain issues are simply not ones on which lines should be tightly drawn (e.g., imperialist wars of aggression) is unpersuasive.

Second, I thought that the attempted historicization of Marxism-Leninism (i.e., the reading of it as an analysis which was true “then” but is now “outdated Cold War politics”) was also unpersuasive. I don’t think that the authors really argued for this point with as much evidence as such a strong claim merits; I do take up, in detail, what evidence they do provide at the end of “The Sect System”, and I argue that this evidence does not provide a foundation for their claims. I also address some of their specific study suggestions for Marxist-Leninists, which I argue are inconsistent and, in some cases, difficult or impossible to reconcile with Lenin’s work or the Third International tradition generally.

To the first point. I’ll set aside the first sub-point (about the NCM) since that’s something of a different topic. On the second point, I think, viewed historically, the three organizations which the authors are talking about are far less strict about adherence to lines on every conceivable issue than during the NCM, less strict than the Trotskyist movement (from its inception to present), and, to some degree, less strict than the official CP movement; the movement in all of those subsections of the left and on the left, generally, during the 1930s-1980s was substantially larger in the US than it is now. So, I think this provides some prima facie evidence that adherence to a strict line is, at the very least, not a huge brake on the size and influence of the left, all else equal. The NCM failed, for sure, and its genuinely ouroboros-character with regard to line-struggle clearly contributed to that (although again, I think the emphasis on that is overstated); but, the fact that line-struggle is now far less heated and that the movement is smaller means that this can’t be the only, or primary, cause (WWP goes far out of its way to avoid polemics against other groups, e.g.—one would never see from WWP the kind of personalization of politics that was common during the NCM, such as the adoption of hyper-specific name-based epithets or condemning the line of fellow leaders of tiny groups, by name, in print, as, quite literally, “evil”). I can't speak for all the groups in question, but certainly the ones I'm most familiar with have no restrictions on members disagreeing with assessments of other members on a great variety of questions—it's just disagreements which would threaten unity of action which are prohibited (I think it's perfectly reasonable to prohibit people from publicly saying things like "I fundamentally think this strike that we're supporting as a group is wrong"—there just isn’t a point in having a political organization that can’t agree on some baseline goals and strategies, in my view). For some groups, that could well reasonably include discussions about China; if one believes that the particular method of organizing socialist revolution in China ineluctably led to a counterrevolution or ineluctably led to a socialist-developmental state, then it would be good to avoid or pursue those methods (or at least learn the lessons that can be learned from them and apply them to a different context)—that actually would be a question of great importance (and, in a way, the author sare implicitly entering into that debate without intending to by arguing that the experience of those countries is probably irrelevant—that is “a position” in that debate, in my view). [I should acknowledge that this last point is also laid out in a comment on the original post concerning Cuba, made by one Daniel Sullivan].

To the third sub-point of the first point: the policy of presenting a united front on questions of great import seems to me to be a pretty standard organizational practice of most political orgs., small communist ones and large liberal ones; in the absence of this kind of minimal discipline, the group can and almost certainly would simply cease to reproduce itself as a group (or turn into an inert federation). Even the DSA draws lines somewhere (and I think the only reason that they can be so lax about what lines they do draw is that they don't actually get much done, conditional on their size). Where the lines of disagreement should be drawn is a good and open question, in my view, and I think it would be better to be more specific about which kinds of lines of disagreement are wise and which aren't; I think it overstates the question to say that groups are too fixated on the proper line as such, since surely nearly everyone would agree that lines need be drawn somewhere—the more specific question of what kinds of lines are or aren’t relevant is much harder to answer at the level of principle. The conclusion to the essay and the “further reading” includes a number of suggestions which are actually adequate to the level of generality posed by this argument—in other words, the fact that this critique could apply to almost an effective organization—by simply advocating very loose organizations, the DSA among them. It is fine to make this argument, of course, but I think it’s wrong; those types of groups are, as a rule, typically not productive ones (I think this is pretty well-established by social movements sociology; I don’t have much time here to elaborate on that, but the empirical question is kind of moot—I would imagine that a pre-condition of being a Marxist or even simply a social democrat, as opposed to an anarchist, would mean holding that view as a precept).

I’d like to end my commentary on this point by suggesting the great relevance of such line struggles on the specific question of Syria since the authors specifically raise this point: they suggest that positions on Syria are basically of little relevance to the left (presumably they mean the left outside of Syria) because of the negligible practical outcomes of those positions: "[i]f you don’t 'uphold' Bashar al-Assad, you’re 'no better than the State Department', despite the fact that 'uphold' in this context means little more than voicing support". By contrast, it seems to me that the relevance of one's position on Syria is very clear: if one doesn't think that Assad is a leading a national-bourgeois war of liberation but instead is prosecuting an imperialist war of conquest, then there would be a far less clear imperative for the workers' movement to oppose the war. In fact, if it were true that Syria (and Russia) were after all imperialist powers, socialists here would need to be careful to not demand an antiwar politics with such fervor that they reduced the ability of the United States to genuinely defend itself against larger imperialist powers (and it would imply a need to coordinate very closely with workers in Syria and Russia, closer than is possible at present thanks to the degeneration of the left in Russia and the US, to ensure that neither wing of the communist movement inadvertently assisted one imperialist power over another). The urgent need to unilaterally call off the war on Syria and the strategy that has developed around that (which is not dissimilar in many ways to the strategy that developed around the war on Vietnam for instance) flows/flowed from a Leninist analysis of the situation. A different analysis could lead to an entirely different political strategy. Even more fundamentally than that, an analysis which says that this question just isn’t that relevant to the first world left—because it can’t do anything about the war—is an analysis which leads us to a position that we shouldn’t do anything about the war (the position “the war shouldn’t matter to us that much” implies a position of “we shouldn’t do much about it”, which compounds the problem of “we can’t do much about it”, which further fuels the position “the war shouldn’t matter much to us”—it’s a classic vicious cycle).

My second point is that I don't find the near-relegation of Marxism-Leninism to the dustbin of history as unambiguous as the authors seem to argue. They imply in the introduction that Leninism is "outdated Cold War politics" (or at least, that appears to be the meaning from the context, although it's not explicit). Later they expand on this claim, and though they do argue that “the world is still in the era of imperialism as Lenin defined it”, they then append a long list of changing historical conditions and ask rhetorically whether we are “in the same period that Stalin speaks of”; they don’t answer in completely unequivocal terms, but since the sub-section is titled “can Marxism-Leninism be salvaged” and since they reply to their rhetorical question with “certainly a lot has changed”, it seems to me that they are, without saying so outright, arguing that at the very least its relevance has been severely weakened. So, I’d like to look at the evidence they offer. Their list of changed conditions is as follows: “the Eastern Bloc has collapsed, formal colonialism has largely been replaced with neo-colonialism, Keynesianism has been replaced with neo-liberalism, and the United States has emerged as the dominant imperialist power”.

It seems to me that it would be better to be clear about the exact stakes of each of these historical changes and how exactly they render Lenin's analysis outdated or not. It's easy, as the authors say, to list changes, but it's equally easy to list continuities: we still live in a capitalist world; most of the African continent, Latin America, and the Arab world are under the heel of “Western” powers; the threat of inter-imperialist wars has returned to the horizon; the continued slide towards the full restoration of capitalism in China and the destruction from within of the USSR mean that we actually have a world which looks much more like the world just before 1914 than the world of 1975 did; and so on. Without a more detailed and clearer explication, this kind of list-making practice doesn’t tell us all that much, in my opinion. And to the implicit claim that simply being old makes the practice of Leninism outdate, I would counter that the dominant political practices of the imperialist countries (right-liberalism and conservative modernization politics) are virtually as old as capitalism itself (and of course, Marx is also older than Lenin, and the democratic socialist politics which the authors end by halfway-advocating are roughly as old).

Looking specifically at the examples here, I would suggest that the relevance of these examples is left unstated and that each example seems to me to be less-than-sufficient to invalidate a Leninist analysis. The Eastern Bloc didn't even exist when Stalin provided that definition (1924), so the relevance of that point is indeterminate, in my view; formal colonialism was also more or less conquered by the workers movement just a few years after the Chinese and Cuban revolutions, and so it, too, has not existed in most of the world for long after Marxism-Leninism seems to have clearly been a relevant analytical framework (and I also don't think that Lenin or other leading Third International politicians assumed that the existence or not of formal colonialism was of life-or-death relevance to their analysis of imperialism); I think it's probably premature to say that Keynesianism has replaced neoliberalism—that seems, to me, to be an outcome of the class struggle (and it's also unclear whether Keynesianism was ever "dominant" or what the exact content of neoliberalism is)—and, in the first place, the relevance of this point is unclear; and, finally, it seems highly uncertain in what precise sense the United States is the dominant imperialist power, how long this conjuncture will continue to last, and how exactly that would invalidate Lenin's analysis of imperialism (there is a great text by a guy called Alec Abbott which can be found here; in pretty fine detail it goes over, from a Leninist perspective, the question of whether we really are in an epoch of ultra-imperialism thanks to the US' primus inter pares status).

I now want to address the authors’ argument that the “M-L canon” is too often presented out-of-context and with minimal updates, demonstrating that the canon is of conjunctural, historical relevance but not of great relevance to the present day. I should begin by saying that I do think that the lack of context given for older texts in that one, specific study guide on Reddit is bad pedagogy, but I also think that this online study guide is probably not broadly representative of the internal education policy of these groups (I know that it isn't for at least one), where older members and people who know this history can often supply that crucial background knowledge; it would be a major publishing undertaking to provide that kind of annotated study guide, although it’s something that I have finally begun myself for a specific subset of the M-L “canon”). I agree with the authors that the exclusion from the one specific Reddit canon of newer writers like Samir Amin is lamentable (again, setting aside that this does not characterize very adequately, in my view, the attitude of actual *parties* to newer analysis), but I again think they’d do better to argue exactly why authors should be included (such as Etienne Balibar who is a philosopher and, aside from his interesting work on global racism with Immanuel Wallerstein, seems like he doesn’t have much to say which is of direct relevance to the US communist left). To argue for a more expansive canon sounds intuitively appealing when pitched at a high level of abstraction, but for the critique to really have teeth, I think a specific critique should argue for adding certain people for certain reasons (I do think the arguments for adding Ho or Gramsci or Luxemburg are fairly self-evident, although it should be noted that Luxemburg sharply disagreed with the Bolsheviks on a number of questions and that Gramsci, though a consistent Leninist, is simply difficult to read in a way that Ho, who I know for a fact appears on one of the candidacy reading lists of one of the parties mentioned, is not—I don’t think this means that people should ignore Gramsci or Luxemburg, but it does mean that it is not a great crime, in my view, to set them aside in some contexts). Let me also note that the critique of the line-centrism made earlier is to some degree in tension with the argument that organizers in M-L parties unduly restrict their canon or are movementists in the sense that they do not reflect adequately on their strategies—to add more and more authors to the canon is to add more and more things to debate lines on (if we are to take seriously the suggestion that we add, for instance, two people who think exactly-opposite things to the canon).

Much of their critique feels sort of formalistic and procedural in this specific sense: the authors advocate for more diversity in terms of what kind of analysis and strategy communist activists should consider, and that’s desirable in the abstract, but they bring together under that heading a jumble of examples of other traditions which are either already well-covered by the expansive vision of Marxism-Leninism that characterizes WWP, PSL, and FRSO, or ones which are, at the end of the day, not compatible with one another because the traditions in question are directly opposed on key questions: “autonomism & operaismo, Marxist-feminism, [and] pre-war social democracy”. I’ve never encountered a single person claiming to advocate Leninism, in roughly eight years of being around people who call themselves that, who thought that Marxist-feminism was anything but of the highest importance, and of course, it’s almost impossible to study Lenin without simultaneously studying pre-war social democracy; anyone who’s read Lenin has, in a partial sense, studied the shortcomings and successes of pre-war social democracy (also, surely if M-L is conjuncturally dated, so, too, is the pre-war SPD). And, finally, it’s something of a contradiction in terms to ask Marxist-Leninists to study operaismo since one of the foundational analyses of Leninism as a political practice and analysis is that approaches such as operaismo are ultimately premised on mistaken analyses (Lenin didn’t live to see this tendency but he was very familiar with some of its precursors). That doesn’t mean it’s without merit—I recommend Bologna’s work on Marx as a crisis theorist and the electoral base of fascism to many people, for instance. But to say that communists must take an interest, necessarily, in this long-dead variant of the workers’ movement (which did not prove to be any kind of silver bullet—of course, its major theorist Tronti ultimately rejoined the PCI and has since become an open defeatist); we simply don’t have the time to study every last possible strategic analysis that exists. I again think that it would be far preferable for the authors to advocate the specific reasons why this analysis is important and how communists can learn from it even though the authors also advocate learning from Lenin, some of whose key precepts are actually, in a way, pre-emptive critiques of the very basis of operaismo (I agree that it would be good for Marxist-Leninist parties to have some people around who study or know this historical material, but it seems unduly onerous for all cadre to know this material). I think it’s good to study everything that we can, but at the end of the day, either Lenin was right or the autonomists were right—we simply have to draw lines, even if “drawing lines” just means “pursuing this strategy and not another”. There is no way to believe A and ¬A, dialectics aside. As I said earlier, I think their recommendations here are formalistic: it’s good and well to advocate greater diversity in an abstract sense, and we of course all agree on the maximum diversity possible in terms of our “canon”, but the devil really is in the details of what is “possible”. Some of their suggestions in this regard seem aimed to ask Marxist-Leninists to simply not be Marxist-Leninists (but their post doesn’t exactly offer a general or comprehensive critique of Marxism-Leninism, which I believe would have made for a more consistent essay).

While the essay offers an interesting historical overview of the Marxist-Leninist movement at present, it is ultimately premised on what I think is a very formal and, to put a finer point on it, simply vague criticism. The authors close their essay by arguing that “in the U.S. in 2018, the truly important theoretical tasks have not been solved” but what these tasks are is left unstated as far as I can tell, let alone what kinds of answers might need to be supplied. Even just a rough sketch of the type of question to which this pronouncement refers would have made it easier for people to engage the essay in a more nuanced fashion, I think. As I noted above, it would have been better to simply argue clearly and directly against Leninism as a theory of the epoch of imperialism outright (the essay comes close to being, but is not, that); instead, the argument is often couched in procedural terms (the form of organization is wrong, the willingness to draw lines is wrong, the selective reading of texts and general seeking of a correct analysis rather than as many analyses as possible is wrong) rather than in concrete, substantial terms. I think the essay would have benefited from simply being more precise on these questions: why exactly does the non-existence of the Eastern Bloc, which didn’t exist when Lenin lived, matter? How, precisely? Why is it that it actually does not matter whether people in the imperialist countries argue against the war on Syria and spread antiwar propaganda? What, then, should communists do? How is it that Draper’s quasi-Bolshevik advice, which is recapitulated on the last page, can be reconciled with a DSA whose merits, in the opinion of the authors, are that it is has no effective national unity or consistency among locals? Despite some points about concrete strategy and political practice throughout the essay which are worth taking seriously, ultimately the essay aims for a very general case against Leninism (and, I would argue, communism and Marxism, given what the authors write about the dictatorship of the proletariat, although I don’t think the authors would agree with this reading) but fails to make that coherent case beyond highly impressionistic sketches of history.

J. Seratsky, 12 Mar 2018.

1 note · View note

essayyard-blog · 5 years

Text

Philosophy Question Description Write a philosophical analysis paper of 1000-1500 words on the

New Post has been published on https://www.essayyard.com/philosophy-question-description-write-a-philosophical-analysis-paper-of-1000-1500-words-on-the/

Philosophy Question Description Write a philosophical analysis paper of 1000-1500 words on the

Description Write a philosophical analysis paper of 1000-1500 words on the essay at the following link:http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.htmlHere is the basic idea: First, read the assigned article several times. When you think you understand it, select an aspect of the article that you find particularly interesting, troubling, exciting, confusing, or problematic. “An aspect of the article” does not necessarily mean a particular section of it; it means a claim or set of claims to which the author is committed, either by explicitly arguing for them, or implicitly presupposing them. Your paper will introduce the reader to the point you will be making, carefully reconstruct and explain the aspect of the article you will be focusing on, and make an argument that evaluates that aspect of the article. The conclusion of your argument is your thesis and is the point you are making with the paper. See below for more details about each of these parts of your paper. Writing StyleYour analysis should be concise and thorough. Do not engage in:- Unnecessary editorializing- Pointless repetition- Personal attacks on the author or questioning of the author’s psychological motives- Complaining about the author’s writing style or choice of words Ideally, every word of your essay should contribute to establishing your thesis. In short, always strive to express yourself in the simplest, clearest, and most precise terms possible. All direct quotations must, of course, be identified as such with a citation. However, in general, an essay of this type should make minimal use of direct quotations. As a rule, one should only quote an author if the precise way in which he or she has chosen to express something figures essentially into your analysis. Never simply substitute a quotation for your own summary of what the author is saying. FormatYour analysis must contain the following three sections, in this order:- Introduction- Summary- Critique Be sure to identify each section. In other words, at the top of the introduction write the word “Introduction,” etc. A Conclusion section may be added, but this is optional. The critical part of your analysis should demonstrate an awareness of other relevant readings assigned in the course (this won’t be much of an issue for the first paper, but will be for later papers). You should be careful when you are reproducing criticisms that are made by other authors we have read. Be sure to attribute those criticisms to their sources and to reference them with proper citations. You should be careful to include or consider important criticisms made by other authors when they are clearly relevant to your own concerns. Follow these specific instructions for each section, to the letter: IntroductionThis section must accomplish the following tasks in the following order, preferably by devoting a single short paragraph to each task. Identify the article, and describe in one or two sentences what problem(s) it addresses and what view(s) it defends. State precisely which aspect(s) of the article your analysis will address and precisely what you intend to accomplish. This must not be a vague statement like “I will evaluate the author’s views…” or “I will show where I agree and where I disagree….”. Rather, it must be a very specific and concise statement of the case you intend to make, and the basic considerations you intend to employ in making it. (You will probably find it impossible to write this section before your analysis has gone through the rough draft phase.) SummaryThe rules for constructing a summary are as follows: For the most part, you should summarize only those aspects of the article that are relevant to your critique. If you summarize more than that, it should only be because anything less will not provide the reader an adequate understanding of the author’s basic concerns. Do not produce an unnecessarily lengthy or detailed summary. As a general rule of thumb, the summary and critique will usually be roughly equal in length. The summary must present the author’s views in the best possible light. It must be a thorough, fair, and completely accurate representation of the author’s views. Misrepresentation of the author’s views, especially selective misrepresentation (i.e., misrepresentation for the purpose of easy refutation) is EVIL and will be heavily penalized. The summary must contain absolutely no critical comments. (This restriction does not prevent you from expressing some uncertainty about what the author is saying, however.) The summary should be organized logically, not chronologically. Each paragraph in the summary will ordinarily present argument(s) the author makes in support of a particular position. This means that, depending on the organization of the article itself, a single paragraph from the summary may contain statements that are made in very different places in the article. The summary itself should be organized in a way that makes the author’s views make sense. Under no conditions are you to simply relate what the author says the way that s/he says them. A summary that goes something like: “The author begins by discussing…..Then s/he goes on to say……then, etc.,” while not evil, is VERY BAD. CritiqueIn this section you will present an argument that in some sense evaluates what you summarized in the previous section. Your critique should be organized in a way that reflects the structure of your summary. This is easy to do since you have selected for summary only those aspects of the article about which you have something to say. Be sure your critique obeys the rules laid out in the Writing Style section above. Here are three different approaches to doing a critique (select only one method to write your analysis).1. Define your project in terms of arguments and views that you find problematic. In your critique show how the author’s conclusion does not follow, either because(i) the author’s reasons are false, or (ii) the author’s reasoning is mistaken, or (iii) the author has failed to make other important considerations that tend to undermine the conclusion.2. Define your project in terms of arguments and views that you basically agree with. In your critique, consider ways in which the author’s views might reasonably be criticized. Then attempt to strengthen the author’s position by showing how these criticisms can actually be met. If you use this technique, be sure you don’t consider criticisms that the author actually does respond to in the context of the article (unless, of course, you think that the author has failed to answer the objections effectively).3. Define your project in terms of arguments and views that you find interesting, but which you are currently disinclined to either fully accept of fully reject. Carefully articulate the strongest considerations in favor of the view and the strongest considerations against the views. Then carefully explain why you remain undecided and indicate precisely what sort of information or arguments would be required for you to be able to make up your mind. ConclusionIf your analysis is sufficiently complicated, it may help the reader to briefly recapitulate the steps you have taken in reaching your conclusions. The conclusion should be very short and it should contain no new information or claims. This restriction prevents you from making closing comments which are not sufficiently articulated in the body of the paper.

#Philosophy assignment help|Philosophy coursework help|Philosophy essay help|Philosophy homework help|Philosophy online class help

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years

Link

Today, Ted Cruz made a little Halloween joke, Tweeting a coded message patterned after the Zodiac, a notorious serial killer from the San Francisco Bay Area.

Happy Halloween pic.twitter.com/jIgTaIMzep

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 31, 2018

Displaying that he has a sense of humor about himself is part of a larger Cruz project over the past year to, under pressure from a surprisingly well-funded Beto O’Rourke campaign, render himself not so toxically disliked by his colleagues. Not so long ago, John Boehner even called him a “miserable son of a bitch.” Now he’s showing he can laugh about his bad reputation. Still, the fact remains that his reputation is really bad and that Republicans are only rallying to his side because they recognize that losing a senate seat in Texas would be a disaster.

So why does this keep coming up?

If I knew, I would be informing the proper authorities and not writing about it here.

The name, however, is used to denote an unknown serial killer who operated in northern California in the late 1960s and early ’70s. He murdered at least five people (and left two surviving victims) and is regarded as a leading suspect in four more murders. The Zodiac Killer corresponded with authorities and the public via letters and postcards sent to media organizations, occasionally cryptographically encoded, in which he claimed a total of 37 victims.

The perpetrator of these crimes was never identified, and the combination of the mystery with the publicity-seeking and cinematic flourishes — like signing his letters with a distinctive symbol and communicating in code — have made the killings a subject of national fascination for decades.

There are several books about the Zodiac Killer, one of which, by Robert Graysmith, was adapted into a 2007 film directed by David Fincher. The theory of Graysmith’s book — endorsed to a limited extent by Fincher’s film — is that the killer was Arthur Leigh Allen (who died in 1992), whom Graysmith links to the killings via a raft of circumstantial evidence.

But Allen’s culpability is contradicted by the fragmentary forensic evidence available. Allen’s DNA does not match DNA recovered from one of the Zodiac Killer’s stamps (Graysmith replies that the evidence was not stored with a view toward later DNA technology), and handwriting analysis indicates huge differences between the killer’s letters and any known writings of Allen’s.

The point is the Zodiac Killer’s true identity was never discovered, and he may well still be at large. Since the killings and the letters stopped, it seems likely that he abandoned murder as a hobby and moved into other social deviant behaviors like attending Princeton, working for George W. Bush, or spoiling the GOP’s best-laid plans to stop Donald Trump.

In all seriousness and as best we can tell, no. An exhaustive investigation by the Washington Post’s Philip Bump reveals that Cruz was born in 1970, while the Zodiac Killer’s first confirmed murder occurred in 1968. Therefore Cruz is not the Zodiac Killer.

Cruz’s birth certificate establishes this pretty clearly.

The same document also confirms that Cruz was born in Canada (specifically the province of Alberta, which is known informally as the Texas of Canada), and that his name is Rafael rather than Ted. (As Rafael is also my father’s name, I kind of wish Cruz went by Rafael, since it would make the Spanish spelling of this name better known in the United States and reduce the number of times his name gets misspelled “Raphael” like he’s a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle or a Renaissance painter.)

On the other hand, who even knows what an authentic Canadian birth certificate looks like? It could be a forgery. After all, a person capable of perpetrating the Zodiac Killer’s crimes — and getting away with it — could probably fake some paperwork.

Left: SFPD composite sketch of Zodiak Killer / Right: Cruz’s official portrait

It’s a joke. The joke appears to have originated way back in 2013 on the @RedPillAmerica Twitter account, which quipped during Cruz’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the subject of his address was going to be a confession of responsibility for the Zodiac Killer’s crimes.

#CPAC Alert: Ted Cruz is speaking!! His speech is titled: ‘This Is The Zodiac Speaking’

— Red Pill America (@RedPillAmerica) March 14, 2013

A few months later, in October, there was a two-week government shutdown largely as a result of a legislative strategy that Cruz hatched. His prominence grew. And it grew again as a result of his 2016 presidential campaign.

Cruz’s growing stature in American politics has provided occasion for more jokes about Ted Cruz. And one thing that happens on the internet is that when a joke has been made enough times it becomes a meme, and simply repeating the meme becomes a way of making a joke.

Many people think you can’t explain jokes, or that even trying to explain them ruins them.

The 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant disagreed, explicating humor thusly:

Suppose this story to be told: An Indian at the table of an Englishman in Surat, when he saw a bottle of ale opened and all the beer turned into froth and overflowing, testified his great astonishment with many exclamations. When the Englishman asked him, “What is there in this to astonish you so much?” he answered, “I am not at all astonished that it should flow out, but I do wonder how you ever got it in.” At this story we laugh, and it gives us hearty pleasure; not because we deem ourselves cleverer than this ignorant man, or because of anything else in it that we note as satisfactory to the Understanding, but because our expectation was strained for a time and then was suddenly dissipated into nothing.

In Cruz’s case, what happens is that you expect to see someone criticizing him for his smarmy speaking style or his retrograde politics, but then your expectation winds up being strained for a time with the accusation that he is an infamous serial killer. When you realize that he is too young, dissipation strikes.

In addition, Cruz fits the basic serial killer profile. His colleagues in the GOP Senate caucus don’t like him. He’s a loner, ostracized by the key social networks among which he operates. Maybe he also kills people for pleasure? It’s difficult to say.

They sure seem to! After all, it was just in late February that Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, said of his Texas colleague: “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

Graham was, of course, joking, but it’s a telling kind of joke. Nobody Cruz works with has anything good to say about him, and as of March 7 he’s in second place in the Republican Party primary and has zero endorsements from any of his fellow senators.

They really, really dislike him. What’s more, given that he’s a notorious serial killer, people really wouldn’t convict you if you killed him. You’d just be doing what had to be done to bring a dangerous criminal to justice.

On one level, it’s about the fact that he’s a cold-blooded killer who has evaded justice for decades. But on another level, Cruz has generated an enormous amount of ill will in Republican establishment circles by launching lines of political argument that they believe he knows to be false as part of a cynical scheme of self-promotion.

The standard Cruz move is to take some objective that is uncontroversial in conservative circles — repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood — but also totally unacceptable to the Obama administration and not especially effective as a wedge issue, and then decide that congressional Republicans should achieve this goal all on their own. Cruz’s pitch will be that if Republicans simply exhibit sufficient solidarity and refuse to fund the government until Obama gives in to their goals, that Republicans will win. Then when it doesn’t work, Cruz blames his fellow Republicans rather than blaming President Obama.

The upshot of this is to create individual political problems for lots of Republican politicians while also undermining the GOP’s effort to do the one thing that could actually achieve these goals: win a presidential election.

In other words, they see Cruz as really the worst of all possible Washington worlds — an extremist who really just poses as more ideologically pure than colleagues, advancing his own personal agenda while setting back the movement’s cause.

That’s the kind of reputation that lands you friendless and alone, wandering the streets of Washington searching for the most dangerous game.

Original Source -> Ted Cruz and the Zodiac Killer, explained

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes