#dragonfire | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jessequinones · 20 days

Text

Stop Using Slurs in Children Stories!

I bet that caught your attention. You might be thinking, what stories use the N-word, or the F-word, well...none that I found. However, there are two slur words that are often used in writing mainly in children's literature because I don’t think enough people know them to be slurs. Those words are cripple and savage.

Before I begin, I need to address a few things. First, I'll only use these words in full for educational purposes so nothing gets confusing. Secondly, I’m not hating on any of these authors. I genuinely think these people might not know cripple and savage are slurs. However, I still need examples of what I’m talking about to explain how common these words are used in writing as well as explaining why it’s a bad idea to use them, so I’m using these authors, not as targets but as examples based on the books I have.

Both of these words (cripple and savage) have a lot of history behind them, and while I strongly suggest, not using them, if for some reason, they have to be used, you need to hire a sensitivity reader who’s a part of the communities that has been affected by said words before you publish your story.

Cripple:

Before I begin, please understand I’ve consulted with a disabled person who’s well knowledgeable in this topic to help smooth out my points. I’m not apart of the physically disabled community. As I’ve been told there’s a big debate going on within the disabled community in regards to if mental disabled people are allowed to use the word cripple or not. This is beyond my understanding of the word, and the community so when I mention the word cripple, I’ll be referring it to the physical disabled community and not the mental one. Everything I’m about to say has already been said by the physically disabled community. I’m not adding anything new or talking over them. If you would like to know more about the language of disability, please read Cy-Cyborg’s article on the matter: https://writingwithcycyborg.blogspot.com/2024/02/LanguageOfDisability.html

Cripple is a world that’s defined one of three ways, to either describe someone who can’t function properly, to describe a situation that’s overwhelming, or to describe an object that isn’t working.

Example one: DragonFire: Sphere of Eternity (book 1)

“I mean, this morning, no offence, you were crippled.” (Describing a person.)

Example two: “The economy was crippled.” (Describing a situation)

Example three: DragonFire: Age of Legend (book 3) (describing an object)

The word cripple, even when it was used in a medical sense has always been a word to punch down and insult the physically disabled community. It was used to attack them and point out their disabilities. It became a common replacement for the word injured because it has a more of a punch. Instead of calling someone “severely injured” use cripple instead, it’s shorter and a lot punchier of a word. Over time it became part of normal vocabulary to use it while describing something as severe, despite it still being used as an insult at the same time. Let’s look at an example of how it’s being used to describe an injury in Robert Vane's A Dragons Chains: Book one of the Remembered War

“I moved my three non-crippled legs…” In this example, the dragon has an injured leg. Why did the author use the word cripple instead of injured? I think it’s because of shock value. Is it cheap shock value? Yes, but shock value for the reader is still shock value. Tell me, what’s the difference would be if the author replaced the word cripple with injured? “I moved my three non-injured legs...” Does using the word cripple add to the sense of urgency? Add to the sense of how injured that character's leg is? Or was it merely just a place for shock value?

But how often is this word used? Let’s take a quick look at the DragonFire series. There are currently four books in this series at the time of writing, and the word crippled is used twelve times throughout four books. Knowing it’s a slur...that’s a lot.

Some of the examples in which it was used are in things such as DragonFire: Fallen Star (book 2) where it reads:

“...he yelled, his scythed tail coiling round, only for the far less crippled dragon to kick him off.” DragonFire: Order of Enishra (book 4)

It’s not just the DragonFire series which does this, other examples include, The Last Monster on Earth by LJ Davies

Which uses it four times in one book with examples such as “Lock these two in the truck with the cripple…”

Warriors: Forest of Secrets (book 3) has this line. “As Fireheart said goodbye to Yellowfang and went back to hunting, he felt a new surge of determination to bring Tigerclaw’s guilt into the open. For the sake of Redtail, murdered; for Ravenpaw, driven from the Clan; for Cinderpaw, crippled...”

And even Wings of Fire, one of my favourite book series uses it.

Here’s a question for you. Is it ok to use that word if the impact is meant to be insulting? In the Wings of Fire example, Queen Scarlet defeats Dune in combat, and is about to kidnap the main characters. Dune, still breathing can barley move upon which Scarlet killed him. Scarlet is one of those pure evil types of characters, this is something I could see her saying, but let’s take a step back and put your eyes in the eyes of a disabled child.

Here you are, a disabled child. You already know what the word cripple is, and it’s been used against you (don’t act like this doesn’t happen). You read Wings of Fire and you come across that sentence. What is the intent behind that sentence in the eyes of a disabled child? Are you supposed to be scared of Scarlet? Angry? Or are you upset, because even in a fantasy book with talking dragons, you can’t escape from real life or that word?

Some of you might say, “What if only the villains use that word?” While I can see Queen Scarlet calling Peril a stupid retarded motherfucker. It’s not something you want in a children's story, so why does cripple get a past?

I hope you’re getting the picture, it’s a very commonly used word, one which the disabled community has begged able-bodied people not to use. The word injured gets the same point across and it doesn’t have a history of it being a derogatory term. While replacing the word cripple with injured or severely injured isn’t a perfect fix, it’s at least getting rid of the other word which is a start at least.

Now before I continue with the other slur, I can hear some of you say you’re aware disabled people are using cripple to describe themselves. Why can’t able-bodied people use it? Here’s the thing. Not everyone in the disabled community is doing this, and it’s not a monolith. The word cripple has been used as an attack against the disabled community for decades. It targets them, puts them down, and it’s only used against them. You only use the term to refer to something as injured so there's no reason to use it on an able-bodied person. The community in which it was used against is taking that word and trying to empower it amongst themselves. You’re not gonna complain if someone who’s black uses the N-word, so why are you upset when disabled people use the word cripple to describe themselves but are saying you can’t? That word belongs to them and their community, not yours. Also, one more thing before I go, not everyone in the disabled community uses this word or wants to hear it. There have been plenty of disabled people who are fine using that word to describe themselves but won’t say it around others if other disabled people express they don’t want to hear it. So be mindful if you’re gonna use it and please hire a sensitivity reader.

Savage:

This word...I have a lot of history with it because it’s a word that’s used against my community, (indigenous) people. And yet, just like the word cripple, it’s used all the time and while it’s a very common occurrence where indigenous voices aren’t heard, we’ve been telling everyone to just drop this word. Unlike the word cripple, we aren’t trying to claim this word, we just want it gone.

The definition of this word is an easy one to understand. It’s to describe a person, object, or an action as barbaric, wild, aggressive, unintelligent, or barely even human.

Example one: “They’re savages, savages, barely even human” Disney, Pocahontas (1995). (Used against people)

Example two:DragonFire: Age of Legend (book 3) by LJ Davies

“I opened my muzzled to respond, but another savage roar drew our attention…” (Used as an action)

Example three:

(Used against a group of people)

Example four: “Savage weaponry” (Use to describe an object)

I’m gonna be using the series DragonFire a lot for my examples, because out of all the books I got, that series uses the word 19 times throughout books one, two, and three. It was used twelve times in book three and I guess someone told LJ Davies about this problem because it doesn’t appear in book four. But it DOES appear in the spin-off series “Tales of DragonFire: Rebellion” twice, and THIRTEEN TIMES in “The Last Monster on Earth”. Overall, that's THIRTY-FOUR TIMES in the course of five books, all meant for children.

LJ Davies isn’t my only example. Chester Young, used it nine times throughout books 1 and 2 of the Celestial Heir books Rowan Silver, used it once in Eyes of Silver: Dragons and Skylines (book 2) And Robert Vane, used it once in the Remembered War series in book 4

Let’s start by showing off some examples and the impact they have and please note, that this might be something you’re just not experienced with. So just like with the disabled child, try to imagine yourself as an indigenous child. You’re fully aware of the word savage, it’s been used against you, and your people. So when you read a text like “Trade with the savages...they wouldn’t understand the concept!”

It feels awfully familiar to lines you read in your history books about your people. Keep in mind, that you wanted to read a story about dragons so you could get away from real life.

(From the Last Monster on Earth by LJ Davies)

I know the United States called the Native Americans savage monsters while stealing their land, it was used as a way to justify their actions, make the natives appear barley even human or in most cases, not human at all, let’s not forget, for a good majority of the building of the United States, those founding fathers didn’t see anyone other than themselves as humans. Reading text, asking how people became savage monsters overnight should remind you how people labelled indigenous people in the past and still do today.

"To confirm the princess’s words, yes, there is an army out there whose numbers vastly exceed our own. Nevertheless, they are a crude mockery of the noble kind they once were, and they are now nothing but savages….There was a series of grunts and nods at that statement...” (DragonFire: Age of Legend, book 3)

I think, this text is a great example of what I’ve been trying to say. In this text, the character who is speaking and the grunts and nods are all dragons with human-like intelligence. They're a stand-in for us. The Elder (who spoke in said text) has been seen and viewed as one of the good guys. He calls his kind noble, and he’s working with a princess, (let’s not forget our history books on how the royal family treated indigenous people). He calls his attackers “nothing but savages”. In translation, their monsters, who are no longer noble or righteous. There’s an agreement with his statement, as if what he says is right and we should be agreeing with him.

In that sentence, understanding everyone is of human intelligence and is a stand-in for humans. We have an old white knight, calling the enemy savages while the royal family are the heroes who are trying to protect their land from those filthy, disgusting, savages. You can kind of see why I’m saying we really shouldn’t be using this word.

“Yellowfang will be allowed to stay here until she has recovered her strength. We are warriors, not savages…” Warriors: Into the Wild (book 1)

Savages...indigenous people, they aren’t warriors, they would’ve killed Yellowfang, and left her to rot in the wilds, Thunderclan is better than those monsters. Am I making my point clear enough when it comes to the history of this word, who it’s targeted against and how it comes across when reading in children's media?

You might’ve noticed I’ve mainly been using examples when it refers to a group of people, not necessarily showing off how commonly it’s used as either an action or an object because honestly...those are just kind of dumb. A savage roar? What does that mean?

Ah yes, because we really needed the use of the word “savagely” to get the point across that Misuk just destroyed a person's skull. The “turning his head into a bloody pulp” wasn’t enough on its own. Without the use of the word savagely how else could we get the aggression and power across? When savage is used as an action it’s mostly because said character loses control of their humanity. They become savage when they attack and the end result is a bloody mess because that’s the only way indigenous, I mean, monsters, I mean barbarians, I mean savage people know how to fight. You often see these kinds of moments when the good guy who’d never hurt a fly loses control and unleashes hell, they turn into something that’s not themselves, they turned into a savage and these moments are meant to be shown as shocking as the character forgets who they are for a couple of seconds.

Indigenous people were savages, with savage strength, and a savage kind of culture. They scalp people, beat them to a bloody pulp, and ate your children. Those monsters needed to be killed. Whenever you use the word savage, it circles back to a group of minorities who were just trying to survive. This word has been used so much, that I don’t think many people realise the history behind it, which is why I said I’m not hating anyone who uses it, but please try to get a sensitivity reader. Get disabled and indigenous sensitivity readers, even if there’s no indigenous or disabled representation in your books, the words you use, still affect us and it’s a good thing to be aware of the words of which you speak and write.

Please be aware of these words, especially if you’re writing stories meant for children because the more children see these words, the more normal they’ll think it is and the more often they’ll start repeating it. I think there’s a time and place for these words, but saying them as an excuse to make something more shocking, isn’t the time or place.

38 notes · View notes

cringecompanionapologist · 4 months

Text

Random Thoughts on a Very Specific Thing: When Companions Choose Companions

Okay, so, off the top of my head, this has happened four times in Doctor Who's televised run. I'm not familiar enough with EU companions to say anything about what happens there.

Companions have become companions for a variety of reasons. The new series has this idea that the Doctor only travels with "the best" and they usually choose their companions. The classic series had a lot of Companions via Circumstance. Dodo and Tegan thought the TARDIS was a real police box and just walked in at the wrong time. Ben and Polly saw the Doctor enter the TARDIS, got curious, followed him, and then he took off before noticing that they were there. Victoria and Nyssa both lost everyone close to them and became companions because they had nowhere else to go. Ian and Barbara were straight-up fucking kidnapped.

There have also been several stowaway companions. The Doctor didn't invite them, but they Insisted. There are very few classic series companions the Doctor chose. In Logopolis, Four even goes on a rant about it. It's actually a big stand-out moment when One invites Vicki to join him and this would go on to be a bit uncommon. Three had Liz and Jo basically assigned to him by UNIT. That's why companions were often called assistants back in the day. They were basically lab assistants. It was literally their job.

I could go on and on about this, but this thing is supposed to be about the four companions that were chosen by another companion: Jamie, Peri, Ace, and Adam.

Yes, I'm counting Adam for this, not because he completely counts as a companion, but because he was invited to be one and basically failed his test run.

Here There Be Spoilers for the episodes these companions debuted in and probably more.

It's funny how the four examples here are split down the middle. The blondes, Polly and Rose, chose companions to come with them, while the gingers, Turlough and Mel, chose companions to replace them. It also splits down the middle in that Jamie and Ace became the definitive companions of their Doctors, while Peri and Adam didn't work well with the Doctors the joined, with Peri not having much time with 5 before constantly bickering with 6, and Adam just failing completely.

I think some of the reason for this seems to be based on the mindset of the companions that picked the companions. Polly and Mel were mainly thinking of the new companion when they chose them. Polly realized that Jamie was in a rough part of history and maybe it would be nice to take him out of it. Mel spent a while bonding with Ace and realized that she could use a Space Dad.

Rose wasn't really thinking when she invited Adam along. She basically did it because she thought he was cute. 9 was never into it, just humoring her, and then they both sort of ditched him on his first trip to the far future. Look, Adam made his own bad decisions and shouldn't have been a companion, but he also shouldn't have been left completely unsupervised in an unfamiliar time period. He got that stupid computer thing in his head because it was basically required to do anything around there, and then decided to be stupid with it.

Meanwhile, Turlough was thinking of the Doctor. 5 didn't handle Tegan's departure well and admitted to being depressed. When he realized he was going to have to leave, Turlough was aware that the Doctor shouldn't be left alone while already feeling depressed and abandoned. So, he assigned Peri as a replacement.

The actual scene where Peri becomes a companion has 5 clearly reluctant. Either he's decided that he wants to be alone or he's just not that interested in her specifically. Turlough telling Peri to keep an on him probably factored in to him accepting her. Strangely, like with Adam, the Doctor took on a new companion whom he didn't like to humor another companion. The difference was that Turlough chose a better companion than Rose did, so Peri stuck around and the Doctor warmed up to her. That also connects to motivation. The reason Adam was the only truly bad choice is that it was made for stupid reasons. Polly and Mel were thinking "the Doctor would be good for this person". Turlough was thinking "this person would be good for the Doctor". Rose just didn't think.

This isn't me bashing Rose, by the way. Everyone's allowed to make bad choices. But, I admit, comparing her to three random classic companions in this situation doesn't make her look good. Rose was a good companion for 9. Her relationship with 10, no matter how much one might enjoy it, might not have been the most emotionally healthy for them. But, she still was a good companion for the most part. She just doesn't have very good judgement when it comes to who makes a good companion.

Also I did sort of accidentally parallel 9/Rose and 5/Turlough. I did not actually mean to do that.

#second doctor #polly wright #jamie mccrimmon #fifth doctor #vislor turlough #peri brown #seventh doctor #melanie bush #ace mcshane #ninth doctor #rose tyler #adam mitchell #the long game is one of those episodes where everyone's a bit of an idiot tbh #the highlanders #planet of fire #dragonfire #the long game #weird coincidences regarding hair color

70 notes · View notes

junkyardbluebox · 9 months

Text

Caption This!

#classic doctor who #7th doctor #ace mcshane #sylvester mccoy #sophie aldred #dragonfire

79 notes · View notes

sarahwatchesthings · 4 months

Text

"Ah, an existentialist..."

#doctor who #seventh doctor #sabalom glitz #dragonfire

84 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 10 days

Text

Britain has been developing a laser air defense system called DragonFire. Originally it hadn't been scheduled for deployment until 2027 but the war in Ukraine may offer the UK an opportunity to test its capabilities by seeing how well DragonFire takes out Russian drones fired at Ukraine.

The DragonFire weapon, which is expected to be in service by 2027 at the latest, can hit a target the size of a £1 coin from a kilometre away. Reforms aimed at speeding up procurement mean that DragonFire will now be operational five years earlier than planned. Defence Secretary Grant Shapps travelled down to the Porton Down military research base in Salisbury in an attempt to speed development up even further "in order for Ukrainians perhaps to get their hands on it". "I've come down to speed up the production of the DragonFire laser system because I think given that there's two big conflicts on, one sea-based, one in Europe, this could have huge ramifications to have a weapon capable particularly of taking down drones," Mr Shapps told journalists. "And so what I want to do is speed up what would usually be a very lengthy development procurement process, possibly up to ten years, based on my conversations this morning, to a much shorter timeframe to get it deployed, potentially on ships, incoming drones, and potentially on land. "Again, incoming drones, but it doesn't take much imagination see how that could be helpful in Ukraine for example." Laser-directed energy weapons can strike at the speed of light, using an intense light beam to cut through their target. They are a lower-cost alternative to using missiles to strike down drones, costing only about £10 per shot.

You can't argue with cheap, fast, and accurate. Ukrainians are quick learners, highly motivated, and amazing innovators. DragonFire and Ukraine would be a great match.

The new procurement model, which comes into effect this week, is aimed at speeding up the process of getting cutting-edge developments in military capability like DragonFire out on to the field. "It's designed to not wait until we have this at 99.9% perfection before it goes into the field, but get it to sort of 70% and then get it out there and then... develop it from there," Mr Shapps said. Asked whether the system might be ready earlier than 2027, he said: "Because I'm here, I've taken the opportunity to arrange additional conversations with colleagues about whether we could speed it up even faster, very much using the integrated procurement model of saying there's a war on - let's say that it didn't have to be 100% perfect in order for Ukrainians perhaps to get their hands on it, can we do any better - but 2027 is still the date as of this moment. "But of course I'll look to see what we can do to speed up."

Ukraine may be the equivalent of a beta tester for DragonFire. Experience in Ukraine would be used for improvements to the weapons system.

So far, laser defense systems are being developed particularly in connection with naval uses. Here's a vid from late 2021 which outlines the potential uses for and challenges to use of such systems.

youtube

It makes me grin to recall that the High Valyrian word for DragonFire is Dracarys.

16 notes · View notes