#i should probably reread and clarify and expand

[retrieve-the-kraken]

Young Royals Season 2 play-by-play analysis

I should clarify that, as I reread these thoughts and delete some of them, I might be adding some stuff to expand on some ideas, that I wasn’t able to fully articulate at the time.

On to episode 3…

EPISODE 3

I appreciate that Wille is doing what he can to improve things for himself, with both Simon and with his mother. And I feel for him and his frustration at not being able to make it work. Right now he thinks it’s that simple, it should be that simple, but it’s not. It’s going to take a little more work, a little more dedication.

“Prison?” August now realizing the legal consequences of leaking the video, and yet he can’t not be an asshole as he seeks help. “I wouldn’t have called you if I had anyone else to call.” August trying to make it very clear how he feels about his stepdad. I wonder if he feels this way because his mother remarried, because she remarried someone who is “just a lawyer”, or because of his feelings about the way that his father died, and about not having a dad anymore.

I think August really wasn’t aware that leaking the video meant posting child pornography, and this is really the first time he’s hearing it. The other two don’t sound technically as bad in comparison, he probably thinks he can get away with those two. But child pornography? That’s a Prince Andrew level of scandal. And now his stepdad knows too.

And so when Sara encourages August to confess, he already knows that there’s no point, it won’t get him out of it. Because that’s all he thinks about, getting off scott-free.

Vincent constantly singling Simon out and berating him when he’s berating all of them… screw you, Vincent. “I always have to prove myself, otherwise he’ll just blame me.” It hurts that he’s so aware of it. Being in that school constantly makes Simon aware of how much he doesn’t fit in with his peers.

So are students at Hillerska not allowed to order takeout? Or would Wille get questioned by the Royal Court about why he’s ordering takeout for himself and his friend?

The way Simon just went “nope” and stopped working out is so relatable (credit to @themarsbar for that gif, which doesn’t appear in the gif tab so I hat to manually look it up because it’s my fav) . I too would hate kicking my knees up in the fucking snow in the middle of the night. I do love that Rosh is helping him, even though she doesn’t consider rowing a sport. And I love that Ayub is sitting by himself in the fucking cold just to be with his friends.

Rosh: “it’s not because Wille’s on the team?” Simon: “No.” Rosh: “You seem to have trouble keeping away from him.” Simon: No answer…

“I just don’t understand why I can’t fall in love with him.” Oh baby, if only it were that simple. Just because you fell head-over-heels in love with Wille in, like, no time at all doesn’t mean that it’s always like that. You can’t force it. And Rosh’s face realizing that Simon is not a rebound guy, he’s a relationship guy, and he fell hard for Wille and that it’s not going to go away that quickly…

“I know I should feel okay that he’s seeing other people.” No, baby, nobody said that. You’re allowed to feel sad and angry and jealous. Things with Simon didn’t end the way you wanted them too, in fact you didn’t actually want things to end. It’s too soon. These two boys are so impatient.

“Here to see the socialist? But like he’s actually pretty decent”. It’s so annoying how Nils is often such an elitist, but like he’s forcing himself to be. He says something disdainful, but then he says something nice. Or he says something in a disdainful tone, just so that no one around him actually thinks he’s nice. I keep thinking back to s1e1, when Vincent shouts at Simon “can you sing louder?” Obviously to embarrass him. But when Simon walks past August, Vincent and Nils, Nils says “hey you’ve got good pipes” or something, but he says it in a tone that makes it seem like a backhanded compliment, it sounds like bullying, because he’s with his friends. God forbid he might be upfront and nice…

“When you’re struggling, it can be helpful to see someone like me.” Wilhelm realizing that Erik was not as perfect as he thought, that he also had struggles. “So that you don’t feel you have to risk hurting somebody.” Does that mean that Erik struggled with self-destructive behaviors?

“He was always saying that we should keep what’s private private. That’s how we were raised. Otherwise… otherwise people take advantage.” Wille, like Erik, seems to have a skewed perspective of what privacy means and what secrecy means.

Wille’s whole confession about feeling lonely makes me so sad. He really feels like Erik is the only one who cared, and now he’s gone. “Then last year I made a new friend who awakened new feelings in me… in a way I wish I hand’t, it was better not knowing how it could feel…” Crying every single time…

It’s interesting how earlier Rosh was pointing out that Simon can’t seem to keep away from Wille. Maybe he is, but then he picks up the book that later Wille has to pick too because it’s the only one left, just by… coincidence? (No such thing. It’s the universe telling them something… *cough* soulmates *cough*)

Wille realizing that Kris by Karin Boye is basically about him… (and of course dear Henry being completely dense, love him).

Simon being conflicted about what he should tell Wille, because he doesn’t owe him anything, and yet knowing that Wille will be sad about it, and also knowing that there’s really nothing going on between him and Marcus (not from his side, at least) and not wanting to use Marcus to make Wille jealous or to simply be a rebound but actually knowing deep down that was the whole point of starting anything with Marcus. And then ultimately deciding that he doesn’t want Wille to be sad…

Simon watching Wille’s face as he processes the information. He had already pretty much decided at this point that he wasn’t going to continue to pursue anything with Marcus, and Wille’s reaction pretty much cemented it. Just like Wille still cares about Simon, Simon unfortunately still cares very much for Wille. He’ll just have to get over him the old-fashioned way. By writing a heartbreak song…

Sara asking Felice to promise that they will find better new owners for Rousseau and then feeling betrayed when Rousseau is still sold to those people is very similar to Simon’s reaction when Wille said he wouldn’t say anything about the video and then doing the interview to deny it was him. Neither Sara nor Simon understand that Felice and Wille weren’t given a choice, their parents decided for them. As privileged as Felice and Wille are, they still have to abide by their families wishes, even if they don’t agree.

“Can’t forget our golden days.” If that’s not an on-the-nose reference to all the golden Wilmon moments, then I don’t know…

“There they are our fucking slaves.” Jesus Christ, Vincent, what a choice of words. And getting all high and mighty and getting in Henry’s face… What the actual fuck… What’s more shocking about this whole tyrannical tirade is that the Housemaster is just sitting there! The entire time, he’s sitting there, watching, like it’s no big deal, like it’s totally okay for Vincent to speak like that and to treat his housemates like that.

When Walter comes to ask August if he’s coming to the shooting range, and August says “You can tell Judas that I’m not ready to make peace”… the irony, when he’s the biggest traitor of them all…

Simon coming into the frame as the lyrics say “I need you to hear what I mean and not what I say” as he heads over to talk to Marcus and tell him he’s not ready for a relationship… and then Marcus being pushy and not listening to him… ugh…

Simon asking Sara if she’s friends with August, and her basically lying. Or maybe it’s the truth. They are not friends. She blackmailed him into helping her get into Manor House, and now she’s horny for him. August, however, does seem to think he can trust Sara, and she revealed to him that Felice is the one who told Wille who the culprit was… maybe that’s what August thinks friendship is. August probably thinks that friendship is just convenience; you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. He probably also thinks that friendship has an element of idolatry, he idolized Erik in his time, and when he became the senior student and prefect and rowing team leader, he was in turn “idolized” (no, he wasn’t, he was tolerated, unlike Erik who, judging from the way that people talk about him, when he was still alive and now that he’s dead, probably was actually idolized, and August has not been able to replicate his popularity the same way, but since people still followed him as the leader then he thought he was doing fine… and now he knows he wasn’t). He thinks that his friends have all betrayed him… no August, your friends were never really your friends, and they’re done with your bullshit.

Sara rubbing in Simon’s face that he gives people second chances (“and third and fourth and fifth…”), but also kind of making it sound like maybe it’s not such a bad thing to give August a second chance. Maybe that’s the way she thinks now, because she’s getting closer to August… Sara had some very strict standards for Simon and then became upset when he disappointed her, but then she goes and makes similar mistakes, but doesn’t seem to be aware of how unfair that is.

The way she says to Rousseau “he’s going to see Marcus…” like she thinks it’s a good thing, like Simon seemed excited about it… the way she says in episode 2 “at least he doesn’t need rescuing all the time”… the fact that Sara hasn’t been home since the beginning of class and they haven’t hung out as much… it makes me think two things: that Sara doesn’t really understand or doesn’t perceive how messed up Simon is over his breakup with Wille, and therefore thinks that Simon is really moving on with Marcus, OR Simon has really kept all his feelings bottled up since before Christmas and therefore neither Linda nor Sara know really how much his breakup with Wille has affected him, and therefore Sara honestly thinks that Simon is moving on with Marcus (which would also explain why Linda was so enthusiastic about Marcus as well). I feel both might be true because of how much Simon doesn’t want to show how much things affect him because he doesn’t want to burden his mother with these issues, because he thinks he needs to be strong (“eres fuerte, Simon”), and so he has tried to force himself to move on or dealt with his emotions in private)… and therefore, if Sara doesn’t really understand how much this breakup affected Simon, how much Wille really meant to him, because she either hasn’t been there or because he hasn’t really shown her how he feels, then she doesn’t understand how desperate Simon is to move on and how much he’s still hurting. Not only that, she doesn’t seem to understand how traumatizing the video leaking was for Simon (after all, she was only really thinking of herself when it happened and it started to have a ripple effect, with their mum wanting to pull them both out of Hillerska).

And it makes me wonder what things would have been like between Wille and Simon if the video hadn’t leaked, what their relationship would have been like it their privacy hadn’t been violated… it sucks to go to that mentality immediately, that “everything happens for a reason” (not when it shouldn’t have happened), and it sucks because but maybe all of these terrible things that happened to them, as traumatizing as they have been, it forced both Wille and Simon to do some hard introspection, mature in many aspects, and find themselves coming out stronger out the other side… it sucks, because they’re just kids, and they didn’t deserve it… but also the only thing left to do in that situation is to focus on the positive outcome and work through the trauma… but I can’t help but imagine for them a life in which they didn’t unfairly get thrown into all this turmoil…

“I never said that I thought that you would hurt me.” Listen, Marcus, he doesn’t have to talk to you about this. He just said he’s not ready, he doesn’t know when he’ll be ready. If you’re a decent human being, you will back off. And why the fuck bring up the video???? This means that you know, you have known this entire time, about the video, about Wilhelm. You know that, if there are weird vibes with Wille, then Wille is definitely the guy from the video. You know that he’s probably trying to get over him… (and yes, you watched it, admit it, you watched it and you liked what you saw).

The rest of that conversation just boils my blood… “I know you don’t want to destroy something so beautiful.” Fuck you and fuck you for making Simon’s resolve weaken with your gaslighting and your superiority complex.

Sara doesn’t know that August has already looked into everything that could happen to him as consequence of the video, he used to think he was just going to lose everything because the monarchy would not tolerate it, but now he knows that he might even go to prison. Sara doesn’t, she still thinks he might want to redeem himself.

Simon cheering for Wille during the competition, then promptly stopping when he realizes that Marcus is there.

When Vincent falls off the chair, Forest Ridge is still ahead. When Simon gets in the chair, they’re still ahead. It’s some time after that that they lose their lead, and lose. But Vincent still blames Simon for losing.

Also August defending Simon in the locker room. Is he arguing with Vincent because he knows Vincent is wrong? Is it because Vincent pisses him off? Is it guilt because of what he did to Simon? Is it because Simon is Sara’s brother? All of the above? Also the “It doesn’t matter, it’s not real” argument because nothing matters to August anymore now that he doesn’t have the power. All the things that mattered so much to him are now so obviously pointless, he either realizes that it’s all meaningless, or he wants to diminish the significance, now that it’s not as important because he’s not at the top looking down

Wille putting on a sad song because it’s the only way he can process seeing Simon kiss Marcus and Simon not being on the team with him anymore. Everything is crumbling, let me listen to sad music and look at pictures of my ex to make myself feel worse. We get you, sweet prince. Next season that photo album will be brimming with cute pictures, new pictures, happy pictures…

That’s not Drottningholm palace or Stockholm palace, is it? As any nerd of this show, I’ve done some research and can’t match the façade of the palace where August arrives to any of the royal palaces of Sweden… but it’s at the waterfront…?

“If, and only if, Wilhelm can’t stand the pressure to take over the throne…” interesting choice of words. She’s saying that only if Wilhelm can’t do it, if he doesn’t want to do it, if he chooses to abdicate, then August would be next in line. Does that mean that if Kristina doesn’t think Wilhelm should be Crown Prince anymore because of his choice to be with Simon or any other reason, as long as he’s up for it he will still be the Crown Prince? They can’t justify him not being fit for it, it has to come from him?

”This will stay between us”, she says, then she tells Wilhelm without hesitation. Maybe it was indeed just a plan. Probably Kristina did need to get a backup (she does say it wasn’t her idea), but the main point of it, especially the point of choosing August, was to light a fire in Wilhelm, make him want to stay Crown Prince, just so that August will never be. (And then Wille turns the tables majestically on her, pun not intended).

I appreciate that she clarifies that it wasn’t her idea, because under the circumstances she would never choose him, the motherly side of her would always side with Wilhelm, but… the queen side of her wins again.

August’s self-satisfied smile, urgh… he’s back in the game. But he can’t tell anyone. He’s just gonna be smug all the time.

“How long do I have to feel like this?” Not long, baby, not long.

Every time… this scene… it’s like watching a train crash… but they both went in for the kiss at the exact same time. Felice definitely has some lingering feelings for Wille. And he knows she wanted him before, so maybe it would be pretty easy, this thing between them…? Let’s give it a try, perhaps? They’re both lonely, and he was desperate and she was not going to say no, so they basically kind of took advantage of each other.

When Felice stops, her resolve immediately weakens when he looks at her, because she probably got all hot and bothered, but she wants to check with him if this is okay. Wilhelm isn’t thinking, he’s desperate for touch, for getting Simon out of his head, for hopefully finding something equally as powerful with someone else, so he’s not even hesitating. He can trust Felice, she’s his friend. It’s not until Henry walks in that he snaps out of it, that he remembers where they are, who they are and what they’re doing, and now someone else knows. His privacy just keeps getting intruded upon…

(Next episode… ohmaigaddd, next episode, so tempted to rewatch just for the heck of it… )

#young royals #wilmon #young royals thoughts #young royals analysis #young royals season two #young royals season 2 #young royals s2

[cassatine]

Why don't you like Jordan Peterson? What did he ever do to you?

Oooh boy. I’d redirect you to the Ressource Page on him I already posted a link to, where you can find much better analyses than I can provide, as well as much documentation on the things he has to say – but I suppose that’s not what you’re asking for.

(I wish you hadn’t asked. I’ve seen the kind of harassment sent to people who criticize Peterson. But you did, so here comes A Rant.)

To start with: what he did or didn’t do to me, specifically, is irrelevant. To illustrate that point – let’s say your school has two bullies. One of them bullies you, the other doesn’t and instead targets other people. Is this second bully more likeable because he leaves you alone? Or is this second bully as dislikeable as the one who does bully you? Are they any less of a bully because you escape their attention?

It’s not about what Peterson did to me, it’s about the ideas he advocates for, the way he profits from his followers, the harm he does other people, his bad scholarship – and more importantly, the fact that he is a gateway to the alt-right for many. He’s replied to this specific concern, for example here, by saying he does not support the alt-right, that he’s in fact stopped many on their path to it. “Read the comments on my videos,” he says, before deflecting by launching in a tirade against comments criticizing him.

I did read the comments and certainly there is some, ahem, strongly-worded criticism from people of all political stripes, but there’s also a bunch of people advocating for a white ethnostate, among other niceties. Peterson’s followers do not all belong to the alt-right, just as not everyone in the alt-right likes him.

But if we step outside his YT channel, there’s an incredible number of reposted videos, on all kinds of channels. Some are mocking: “here’s Peterson speaking nonsense as usual.” Some are very much alt-right channels, and thanks to the magic of YT algorithms, the more those are watched, the more you’re proposed videos by more extreme people. Stepping away from YT altogether, and delving into alt-right and manosphere forums and sites, links to Peterson’s videos are not a rare occurrence.

And yet, he does not believe he has been co-opted by the alt-right to any significant degree.

I find the claim dubious (and the formulation interesting – “any significant degree”). I find the fact that he pretty much always deflects to his bête noire, the left “far more gripped by totalitarian spirit” than the rest of the political spectrum (and yes, that includes the alt-right) even more dubious. Not only the claim itself, but the way Peterson uses it to turn the tables. ‘I don’t think I was co-opted by the alt-right,’ he says, ‘and anyway the real problem is the totalitarian left.’

Polarization is also a problem, he says, and that I can easily agree with. I can also agree with the idea that having conversations with people who hold very different views is a good thing, and that for this to happen one must be prepared to listen.

I do, however, doubt that Peterson is himself prepared to listen. He has shown many times that he rejects any and all criticism, instead explaining it away as coming from the ‘totalitarian left’ and rooted in Cultural Marxism© – basically framing it as invalid. To have the kind of conversation he speaks of, both sides must be prepared to make concessions, to agree to disagree, to accept one might not see the full picture, and yes, to accept that one might be wrong on some points. You can’t have this kind of conversation with someone who wants to win, with someone who deeply, absolutely believes they know better, and that anyway the other side is a problem, and not a small one, nope, more the kind that will lead civilization to its doom and also the gulag.

I did listen. I read much criticism of Peterson, but I also listened to his videos, I read some of his stuff, and I do not believe he is the listening type. I’m pretty sure I could never have an actual conversation with him, for a very simple reason: he would consider me a Cultural Marxist©, a member of the oh-so-dangerous totalitarian left – and reject everything I might say on these grounds.  

The notion of Cultural Marxism© in fact allows him to brush away much of the criticism directed at his ideas: if someone were, say, to criticize his unfalsifiable claim that “Faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof” by arguing that’s it’s built on a deep misunderstanding of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, then he’d just have to argue it’s the critic that misunderstand Gödel because Cultural Marxism©. If someone were to say Jordan Peterson Doesn’t Understand Nazism, and actually has his facts wrong on the matter then that critic would be the one not understanding because Cultural Marxism©. If someone were to say Peterson didn’t even understand what Canada’s Bill C-16 entailed, it wouldn’t be because they actually understood the bill, but because Cultural Marxism©. If someone were to say he’s wrong about the pay gap – well, you can guess.

(There is another reason why Peterson Is Never Wrong, and that’s because his usual argumentative strategy is never actually saying what it is he means, which means he can always fall back on being misunderstood and misinterpreted. If someone were to say his comments on “enforced monogamy” amount to a careful defence of natalist policies, and go so far as to reference those totalitarian regimes he says he is fascinated and revulsed by with, say, the Lebensborn program and the Bund Deutscher Mädel, or Decree 770 – well, he’d just have to say that’s not what he advocates for. Of course it’s not. He just circles around the notion, and if our someone were to mention things that happened, things that were documented, things Peterson will never talk about because women have never been oppressed, not ever – well, that’s an undue, unfair parallel; from him to the Lebensborn, there is after all quite a stretch. Although I don’t see how it’s a more unlikely one than, say, “using gender-neutral pronouns will lead to the gulag.”

Probably because Cultural Marxism©.)

And let’s be real, it’d be hard for me to have a productive conversation with someone who buys into Cultural Marxism© in any case – especially when they describe themselves as fascinated and revulsed by totalitarianism. For someone who has so much to say (and much that is factually wrong) about Nazism, Peterson seems strangely unaware that Cultural Marxism© is nothing but the contemporary version of Cultural Bolshevism©, and that it’s most dear to… the alt-right.

Peterson appeals to some portions of the alt-right because much of what he has to say is eerily similar to their own arguments: the destructive, doom-leading influence of Cultural Marxism©, obviously; intelligence differences having a biological (ie racial) basis; the naturalness of hierarchies dominated by white men; most if not any of his statements on The Woman Problem, etc.

The alt-right, however, has solutions for all these problems, and that’s where the love story stops. Peterson does not give solutions. He will tell you that society’s refusal to acknowledge biology-rooted differences in intelligence is a problem, a big one, an enormous one, and he will stop there. He will tell you that what women really want is to be dominated, that they are socialized to believe otherwise, that it’s wrong, and he might go so far as to propose that the solution to the Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian of the world might just be enforced monogamy, but he will not advocate for it directly. And because he doesn’t take that last, seemingly logical step, some on the alt-right hate him. He is a traitor to the cause, a sell-out.

Does it matter whether Peterson is affiliated to or worried by the alt-right? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we should in fact focus on other things. Like the fact that he is not afraid of a little lie, like that time he pretended to have been inducted in a First Nation tribe – a relatively common tactic: “i’ve been inducted in (x)”, “some of my ancestors were (x)”, “some of my followers are (x)” is frequently used as a way to shield oneself from criticism coming either from members of (x) or criticism addressing one’s stance towards (x). One of the problems with this is it rests on the (usually unsaid) assumption that all members of (x) share the very same views and values. See outgroup homogeneity effect.

It doesn’t reflect well on him that he lied about it, but even if it had been true, it wouldn’t have made his ideas any less racist, no more than it would have given him the right to speak for First Nation Canadians.

Oh wait, I probably need to back up the racism claim.

Here are Peterson and Stefan Molyneux, another altogether awful dude. Peterson is dead wrong from the start – intelligence isn’t the best predictor of “life success, economically,” neither is conscientiousness (which needed to be mentioned otherwise his point about meritocracy would make no sense at all), the two don’t automatically come together, though of course any argument I could make would have to be rejected on the grounds of Cultural Marxism©. Anyway, what follows is typical: Peterson takes care to mention that “this is where some the uglier elements of science become germane,” which allows him to distance himself from what he’s about to say, establishing he’s only relating what science indisputably shows and that he acknowledges The Ugly. He adds it’s “that which no one would want to be the case,” reinforcing this distance. That thing no one wants to be true but is science, he continues, is that there are “profound and virtually irremediable differences in people’s cognitive performances, and that those differences have a very solid biological and heritable basis. No one wants to hear that. They don’t want to hear that it’s biological, they don’t want to hear it’s heritable, they don’t want to hear it’s permanent, they don’t want to hear that it’s irremediable and that it actually has a practical consequence.”

(“Intelligence” is a much more complex thing than Peterson seems to believe. It’s determined by complex genetics and environmental factors; the question of heritability is also way more complex than that; the permanence thing refers, I believe, to IQ and that too is more complex than “it’s permanent and irremediable” – “irremediable,” btw, is pejorative in this context.)

You can guess why no one wants to hear it – not because Peterson is oversimplifying and misrepresenting the results of contemporary research on cognition, not because he’s hedging close to Social Darwinism. Nah, it’s because of Cultural Marxism©’s doom-leading influence, obviously.

Molyneux is quick to expand, distancing himself in similar ways to Peterson’s from what he’s saying-but-not-saying, which is that ethnicity and gender are basically the main factors in intelligence difference. Peterson downplays but doesn’t disavow the gender factor, explaining it as “relatively trivial.” Ethnicity, however, is a whole other matter, and he mentions Ashkenazi Jews having an advantage over other Caucasians – a reference to Sam Harris’ The Bell Curve, one of the go-to works for people trying to bring back scientific racism.

Peterson brings back his earlier idea that intelligence is the best predictor of “life success, economically,” and explains that Ashkenazi Jews’ intelligence advantage is “sufficient to account for their radical overrepresentation in positions of authority and influence and productivity,” no actual statistics given. The very terminology is dubious – “radical overrepresentation,” not “greater representation,” or anything more neutral-sounding, and it’s easy to go from here to there, even easier when you remember the historical roots of the notion of Cultural Marxism©, but of course Peterson is quick to distance himself again: “just so it’s absolutely clear, I am not saying [this overrepresentation is] a bad thing.” He’s not being antisemitic is what he means. He’s only saying there’s a real reason for it – ie the biological basis of intelligence difference, which since we live in meritocracies (we don’t, and considering the accent he puts on the intelligence factor and its inheritability, it’s not quite the good term anyway) accounts for “life success, economically.”  

There’s more of the same, but basically we go back to the idea that no one wants to admit it’s True, All Of It, and of course, that it’s a problem. It’s a problem because in our more and more “cognitively complex societies” there’s less and less room for the “gainful employment” of the bottom ten percent. The human capital of these ten percent is too low, if you will (of course how much that should even matter depends on whether or not you believe productivity is an important factor to determine individual ‘worth’), making them at best worthless and at worst a burden. Peterson unsurprisingly insists he doesn’t have a solution to this unsolvable problem, which might be sincere, or might be because he’s aware that historically, the solution is eugenics, and of course that’s not something he’d ever advocate for.

Just to make it clear, under all the rhetorical flourishes, this is two white men saying white men are more intelligent than everyone else because Science, but the “science” they refer to is either held as pretty much pseudoscience (the Bell Curve) by the scientific community, or criticized to a degree (IQ, which is insufficient a tool to approach all areas of cognitive abilities, among other critiques) and misrepresented anyway, because neither Peterson nor Molyneux give a whit about what The Science really shows, they just want to make it like their prejudices are rooted in fact: they’re not racists (remember the ever-important ethnicity factor in intelligence difference), they’re just pointing out undeniable facts. They even say it’s ugly, what else could we ask for?

Some awareness of this, maybe:

[Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

(Another thing Peterson was dead wrong about, but I think he knows it, is when he says no one wants to hear that. There are plenty of people who want to hear exactly that, and they love people like Peterson, who can give a veneer of scientific credibility to their prejudices. He should know, since they make up a vocal portion of his fandom.)

Maybe I should get into The Woman Problem as well. I did mention it. Peterson has a lot to say about women. Sometimes he frames it as questions, which allows him to say “I didn’t really say it, I’m just asking questions, you numbskull.” (paraphrased). There’s that time he asked why do so few women watch my videos? Which I’m only mentioning because considering what follows, it’s hilarious, and I kinda need a laugh at this point. There’s that time he asked could it be that women are outraged because they crave infant contact and society refuse them that? There’s the worse do feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they crave masculine dominance? There’s the blame-shifting can men and women work together in the workplace? He actually answers this one, and the answer is women and men can’t work together because we (men) “don’t know what the rules are”. Which rules is unclear (maybe “don’t harass women?”) but no matter, Peterson has some to propose: “no makeup in the workplace” should definitely be one, since it’s “sexually provocative”. Women paint their lips red because “lips turn red during sexual arousal”. High heels are also reprehensible since they “exaggerate sexual attractiveness.” Of course, he’s not saying women shouldn’t do it, just that it’s, you know, what they do. Kind of like they’re asking to be harassed, honestly. Might that be because of that craving for masculine dominance?  

More pearls that should make it clear why he’s overall more popular among men: Women are characterized by “higher levels of trait negative emotion (neuroticism)” in contrast to, of course, men. (A comment on a study of online harassment posted by James Demore, who managed to get fired from Google for a sexist memo; you can contrast his description of working at Google to the testimonies coming to light with the Google Walkout.) Women that don’t want a child by their 30s? There’s something that “isn’t quite right with the way they’re constituted or looking at the world”. More cringy comments ensue. Looping back to women’s craving for masculine dominance: Testosterone, nothing’s more appealing to women. Some appalling comments on men too. Rhetoric eerily similar as that of MRAs/Incels’.

It’s all Very Serious, so I’ll focus on something that’s kind of funny in this neverending deluge of awful: Peterson’s deep, deep dislike of Frozen. Yes, Disney’s Frozen. He didn’t like the propaganda:

Frozen apparently “served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful. Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art. Frozen was propaganda, pure and simple. Beauty and the Beast (the animated version) was not.” He’s expounded on that, explaining it was “produced for ideological reasons” as an anti-Beauty and the Beast, which is “inappropriate”. He did like Moana, but only because Moana allied herself with this “uncivilized, rather masculine force” 

I’m sorry but that’s hilarious. I mean, there’s two main male characters in Frozen (not counting Olaf, who is a snowman), and one of them reveals himself to be Bad News, but the other is… kind of instrumental to the “success” of the female characters? His name is Kristoff, but he doesn’t count because… Well, Peterson doesn’t mention him, so I’m not sure why he gets erased from the narrative, but if I was to hazard a guess it’s because he is Not A Good Example Of Masculinity. Too nice, too bumbling, too… beta-y. Definitely not enough of an “uncivilized, rather masculine force.” (Though even that seems debatable, considering his way of life, but whatever.)

I wonder what he thought of Brave. Haven’t found anything on that one. Anyway, assuming Frozen is an anti-BatB, why is it inappropriate? Why, because BatB is the “fundamental hero myth for women”, which he defines as “find a monster that wants to be a good man and help him be a good man”. Don’t go for the “underdeveloped, harmless thing”, ladies, go for the monster. He admits “that’s a scary thing to do,” but since the choice is between a monster and a “castrated man…” 

(On Peterson and myth – I will never stop if I go there, so please read Homer and Hatred: On Jordan Peterson’s Mythology; Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism – to be followed by Umberto Eco’s essay on fascism; Jordan Peterson’s Tired Old Myths; Jordan Peterson’s Murky Maps of Meaning; Elwood’s The Politics of Myth: A Study of CG Jung, Mircea Eliade, which is not about Peterson, but considering the influence of Jung/Campbell/Eliade on his own approach of myth I still recommend it.)

Please note the dehumanizing language (thing), and of course the eerily similarity with MRAs/Incels’ rhetoric.

On the manosphere forums, you can find praise for Peterson and just under it, someone who thinks throwing acid into women’s faces is the best idea since the wheel. Or something much, much worse. I wonder if Peterson is wilfully blind to it, or if he’s exploiting it. I wonder why he’s so afraid of Cultural Marxism©, when so many of his fans fantasizes about killing women, killing Jews, killing Muslims, killing everyone that’s not them and unapologetically admire those who act on that hate. I wonder if it matters. I wonder if someday soon someone will follow in the footpaths of Elliot Rodgers and Alek Minassian, and leave a manifesto quoting Jordan Peterson. I wonder how we’ll explain it away. How we will explain it away. There will be a girl, or maybe a woman. She will have rejected this newest killer, she will have worn makeup and heels. It will be a sad story, because if she’d accepted the monster, if she’d been the Beauty to his Beast, we’d have avoided a tragedy. We won’t say, it was her fault, we’ll just insinuate it. Somewhere, someone will say; Jordan Peterson is so right. Click for my essay on Why Women Are Evil And Also Stink (Because Vaginas Are Dirty) And Not Fully Human!

In Peterson’s deluge of words, there’s some decent, common-sense advice. Stand up straight, it’ll do wonders for your self-confidence (and accessorily your spine). This you know already, as you already know everything I’m about to tell you, like the fact that, dear men, the world is doing you many a wrong by trying to convince you that we should all be equal. We are not. Fight for the reestablishment of your nature-given right to dominance.

But don’t forget to clean your goddamn room first.

In another timeline, he’d just be one of a bunch of people on my list of utter quacks, along with so-called Ancient Aliens theorists, Campbell, and a looot of anthropologists and prehistorians from the nineteenth century (an era Peterson could have easily belonged to, and probably been happier in, what with all the scientific racism), among others.

Peterson earns his place on the list because he has some very dodgy ideas about The Past (let’s not forget(1) He can’t tell you how he knows that, but The Ancients depicted the DNA molecule. (2) More examples, and again he “really believes” that they are ancient representations of DNA, it’s just “very complicated to explain why” (3) Oh but wait, he doesn’t “believe” that, he just has his “suspicions.”) and Human Nature (not even that accepted a concept, btw). Look, anyone telling you “that’s how it was Before hence it’s what’s Natural and how it should be again” is lying to you. The Before is a deeply political territory, and the things we chose to tell, the very way we tell them, the parts we cherish above all others – that says as much about us as it does about the Before (and often enough, more). People who say “that’s how it was; that’s what’s natural; that’s how it should be” are misrepresenting the past, cherry-picking the bits that support their arguments. What guides their choices is nothing but Ideology – which is what they’re really trying to sell you.

Be wary of people who instrumentalize the past to sell you something, be it the Lebensraum or communism as the true State of Nature. Or a specific, “natural,” model of social hierarchy.

Which brings me to the lobster. Why, of all things, does Peterson pick the lobster? I don’t know that, and neither does anyone, because he never explained it. A shared common ancestor in no way justifies it: if we look far back enough, we share common ancestors with pretty much anything living. And the lobster is such an incongruous choice. Not a primate, not even a mammal.

I have no doubt Peterson could have spun something out of the Bonobos, and point to actual Science. That’d make a modicum of sense at least. But no. Fucking lobsters. Even my nineteenth century dudes would have brought Statistics before going there. They’d have tried to argue that studies showed the majority of all things that breathe favour a specific social organisation over all others, and they’d have given a variety of examples. Among which the lobster, maybe. They’d have explained Mantis religiosa and other inconvenient counterexamples away. Peterson’s book, it’s true, is theoretically a self-help book, but still, he’s an academic, and yet he goes straight for the lobster. 

Part of me is disappointed. He could do so much better than lobsters. But why would he, since so much of the reading material is produced by those oh-so-evil, doom-leading Cultural Marxists©? Why even bother with standard academic practices when those were set by the same Cultural Marxists©? It’s all worthless.

(That might be why he didn’t even try to use the Bonobos or another species of primates, to go back to my previous example. After all the argument that they’d be a better choice is in part based on research produced by disciplines infested by this so-called Cultural Marxism©. The lobster, on the other hand, is a massive fuck you to those evildoers.)

But. Peterson isn’t the Flat Earth society. He didn’t write the 21st century version of the Telliamed. He didn’t write a parody like Blueprints for a Sparkling Tomorrow: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, which I’m mentioning because one of its authors wrote some really good stuff on Peterson.

He’s not funny. He is A Very Serious Man, peddling Very Serious Notions.

#anon #ask #i should probably reread and clarify and expand #but the more time i spend on this #the more i'm afraid the worst portions of his fandom will send me not so nice messages #so fuck it here it is #in all its unedited unorganized glory #and incompleteness #this is an anti jordan peterson blog

[darkzeruda1214]

The anime improved her character

Now I want to clarify something before I start. 

I know the Yu-Gi-Oh! fandom is heavy on the shipping, so I want to ask that most of you readers who are shippers to please put to that to the side for a moment. I’m not attacking any of your ships. I’m not saying they are inherently bad. Nor am I trying to put any shade on them. I’m solely focusing on the character as a whole.

I also understand that Anzu/Tea’s character is also a touchy subject considering the fandom’s mixed feelings about her. So I also want to ask to read this with an open mind. I’m not trying to change anyone’s perspective of her. I’m not trying to make you like her if you don’t. Or hate her if you do like her. I’m talking about my own opinion about her and what I felt about her. And you’re more than free to disagree with me, just like I have a right to talk about what I feel about her as well.

With that said here are my thoughts...

There’s one more thing I want to clarify before we start. 

I will be addressing Anzu’s character in three perspectives.

You have her manga counterpart.

Her Japanese anime counterpart

And her 4kids version. 

I will not be including her game counterparts by Konami. Nor will I talk about her movies versions either. Because Pyramid of Light isn’t essentially part of the main story as a whole.  And Dark side of Dimensions takes place after all the main Yu-Gi-Oh! events. And while yes the movie does take place in the manga universe. It’s still many years after the release of the books.  

Now… with that said let’s officially start.

As someone whose been both watching the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime and reading the manga there’s a number of things I’ve seen be changed in both versions. Besides the larger obvious changes, (such as duels, plot points, etc.) there were some smaller ones that I noticed when I reread the manga.

And thus we get to Anzu’s character as a whole.

And as the picture says.

Anzu’s manga incarnation is my least favorite of the three versions.

Now, I really do like Anzu as a character. I don’t hate her. But I’m not going to lie that I used to be one of those people who would bash on her simply because she existed. But looking back on that I found just how unfair and bias that was.  Then I got to take a closer look at her character and I found, that her manga incarnation (to me) has to be her worst version mostly because of how she behaves in it.

Now no hate to Kazuki Takahashi, but Ima be frank, the only female character that I thought was well-written was Mai, and Ishizu to an extent. The rest… well could use some work. More particularly Anzu, now I do understand considering the manga was first published in 1996. In a time where women’s roles were a bit different then how it is today.

I’m no expert on Japanese customs, and how women are and were treated. But I do know there is a difference in Japanese culture and Western culture. Especially with woman empowerment in the recent years.

Now beyond that small detail, I already came clean that manga!Anzu wasn’t exactly a favorite. I’m not saying she was all that bad, as she clearly has her good points but I think what made her bland and off-setting is how she reacts to certain situations.

Warning: I’m heading into romantic territory.

I think more of less her crush on Yami Yugi/Atem. More specifically during the time they went to the water park. What seriously made me ticked off about Anzu was that she intentionally put herself in danger in order to see “cool other Yugi” in action.

And that’s one thing that bothered me a lot. Because the reason she even got a crush on Atem is mostly because he saved her from being shot. Which isn’t inherently bad. But you think she could be more concerned about the fact that the guy died. By being lit. On. Fire.

Who had been sitting right next to her I might add.

Granted she was blind folded, but you think that a person who bets her life wouldn’t be playing games by using fingers. (Granted Atem’s intelligence is off the charts when it comes to playing games). She should be scared shitless of the “mysterious” person and for her life. But still she falls in love with a stranger who DIRECTLY caused a criminal to be lit the guy on fire. I can understand that she falls in love with him because he saved her life. But if setting up a trap so a person can be lit on fire willingly doesn’t scream a manipulative psychopath, then I don’t know what to call them then.

Now going away from that fact, I think another thing that really bothered me is just how distinctly she cares little for everything else when dealing with Atem and her not so secret crush on him. And that would always involve little-miss-friendship one way or another to cast Yugi aside, just so she can spend some time with Atem. And to me that was just irksome. (So much for being childhood friends)

Something else that tends to grind my gears has to be the fact that she always, somehow is the victim of being captured and being used as a ransom or cause troubles for the whole gang. (Not to say that the anime hasn’t done this, it’s just not as much as it was in the manga).

Though, I won’t deny it must suck being the only girl. Especially during that “don’t make a sound” trial in the Death-T arc.

Now the reason why I prefer her anime counterparts compared to her manga version, is mostly because they were able to add more to her character beyond the basics. As well as tone down some of her negatives to something that sounds realistic and what a normal teenage girl could have.  

Now I’m not saying that her anime version hasn’t done wrongs. As at times she would get frustrated over nothing. And her jealousy rivalry with Rebecca can get out of hand and just straight out made for the basis of comedy. But to me that’s still miles better than her manga counterpart (especially in the earlier works).  

But if I had to be honest, I think her Season 0 counterpart, as well as her 4kids version were my favorite incarnations of her.

Yes, even her 4kids version. Friendship jokes aside they able to give her a less annoying personality. (And the fact that they got a voice actor that didn’t try to sound like a stereotype cute anime school girl) And whether you like Tea/Anzu or not, she does have a spunky personality, which is a lot more evident in both Season 0 and her 4kids counterpart. This gal is the embodiment of friendship goals!

She’s a friend who will always have your back and is willing to go through thick and thin. Not to mention if you’re feeling down she will try to find a way to lift your spirits. If not listen to your problems and comfort you.

Say what you want, but if she were real. I would like to have her as a best friend. And just in general, going back to her Season 0 counterpart, (as many consider to be her best version) and quite frankly I agree, and I think what made her such a good character in it, is that some of Anzu’s lesser great moments were given to Miho. Who has a cute and scatterbrain personality, not only did it give Miho personality, she was usually enjoyable to see on screen. Sometimes she was annoying, but not to the point were it was overbearing. And it meshed pretty well with those faults and still make her joy to watch on screen. Because of this we got to focus on more of Anzu’s stronger traits, and be a supporting independent character. For instance, the chono-sensei episode, where Anzu stood up for a class mate because her love letter was going to be revealed to the whole class as punishment.

Or starting a petitions to give students a chance to get a job while they’re in school. Or the fortune teller scene, where she reveals that she doesn’t believe in fortune telling and that she can shape her own future because she makes it happen by her choices and will.

I think more or less I think some of my more favorite changes has to be these two scenes.

Like this one:

changing to this:

These two are from the Season 0 and first manga volumes. The differences being instead of Anzu being the turned into a toy first, it’s Miho and later on Anzu joins, but out of her free will to fight along side her friends.

...

Then there’s this one, it changes from: 

To this:

The second comparison is from the Yu-Gi-Oh! Duelist vol. Where she’s being controlled by Marik and would be forced to swallow a poisoned capsule if Yugi doesn’t duel a controlled Jounouchi/Joey

And the second one being that she’s strapped down to a chair and instead of being poisoned she will instead be crushed under a large metal crate. This allows Marik to release his control on her, since she’s locked. Which then allows her to watch the duel.

Being free of Marik’s control she’s able to tell Kaiba and Mokuba this:

And to me that makes a huge difference because it shows how much of strong and caring character she is. She’s willing to die for her friends so that they don’t have to.

(Though to be fair in the original manga she probably would do the same if she was in control). But I think that small change grow and expands her character even more.

And to me, I simply just prefer her anime counterpart in comparison to her manga version. I sincerely believe that both animes fixed what made her a bit intolerable in the manga. At least to me that’s what I feel

Feel free to disagree, but I’m sticking firm to mine. 

#yu-gi-oh #anzu mazaki #tea gardner #mixed thoughts #manga #anime #4kids dub #4kids #personal confessions #confess series

[aparticularbandit]

also also - i plan to try and keep having content to post for mondays, but i don't think i'll necessarily keep to a strict schedule on what will be updated. after ACAL, i kind of want a schedule break. ><

i do have enough backlog to cover the three non-roisa fic week mondays in august (well, almost, I started the third chapter of the university fic and if i want i have other stuff i've started i can do instead, so i'm not really worried at this point) so that gives me freedom to do writing on a multitude of things for pretty much the next month, which is basically the month-long break i'd intended to be last month so. even if there's only monday updates, y'all should be covered.

as far as project updates, here's what we're looking at in terms of bigger projects:

continuing chapter updates on iylhybhn - because it's...i've got it brainstormed a while further

potential continuing chapter updates on j:trs - it's my cathartic fic response to s5 so - might not be as potentially regular as iylhybhn but. short little chapters here and there? maybe probably

start posting the university au - emilia antonia - because that's what i have backlogged right now and i reread what i had last month and i want more of it which means maybe i should write more of it

episodic chapter updates of heart in motion - it's episodic so it depends on when i have good episode ideas

potential chapter updates to aftershocks - I have flashback ideas to address how it's technically still post-s5 but rose isn't dead

potential more updates to shenanigans: ACAL edition because alternate ending and blooper reel and follow-up on allison's character arc and more santa!emilio because why not - but this might be a bit because as much as ideas for this i have other projects i want to focus on first

new project: tentatively titled sin rostro - 1920's mafia/mob boss au. petra plays a major part in this and i'm. excited

new project: tentatively titled falling - yes, that's a different title from even yesterday i'm playing around with how those feel - and this is post-s5 luisa dealing with the emotional and mental ramifications of accidentally killing rose with her no-longer-a-practicing-therapist alana bloom and basically living on the verger-bloom farm because yo horse therapy is a thing

new project: tentatively titled luisa and the child - simply put, this is a sequel to luisa and the fox. it might jump the gun a little bit. oh well

as far as other projects being brainstormed or in the process of being written but which i'm holding back on:

everything's coming up roses - the 90's rom-com au - there's a lot of similarities in luisa's characterization between this and ACAL, so i want to hold off a bit

when the lightning strikes the sea - roisa hp au featuring miss lint - i want to get back into writing book one, but i still plan to hold off on posting until the whole book is done with a rough draft, a second write, and hopefully a couple of betas - one for roisa content and one for hp content. then it's just a quick run-through and post. so! still in-progress! but might be a bit

dreamers often lie - roisa soulmate au - i should start writing this because it feels like it's at that point of brainstorming block until some writing is done

jtv s3b+ rewrite - tentatively titled fire in my blood - backburner brainstorming

another soulmate au one-shot that works well with the s5 ending that keeps knocking around and desperately wants to be written and hopefully remains a one-shot and doesn't expand

potential continuation one-shot of the roisa soulmate timer au one-shot - this one would be focused on jane

epic jtv/superhero/timeless crossover - I HAVE SO MANY THOUGHTS ON THIS BUT WANT TO BETTER CLARIFY AND ADDRESS THE SG STUFF - but dottie/lint and roisa and emma/whitney and a heaping helping of mama!rhea with lena and dottie - because using ben's rhea because love her - like. i have some of the plotlines etc. hammered out but want to figure out how kara is involved and which sg season i'm using etc. so. massive crossover yay

i also have a concluding one-shot to the day her line went flat series of one-shots that should probably be fine after a read-through rewrite edit or something like that.

...and i also have another hallmark holiday special started that is more of a subversion and luisa's the one going to the small town and also clara's dad? might? be? involved? there's no mia but there is a dog, if i remember correctly. but that one might be a while i'm really tired when it comes to hallmark and Christmas fluff. >.>

...and then the dottie is sin rostro fic. except dottie and rose both exist because it plays with the idea that the faceless refers more to a group of people than one individual - that it is split between rose, elena, and derek. except i may change that. dottie is definitely dottie is the point here.

...and then the timeless/noir fusion fic which is way back on the burner because reasons.

#musings #bandit does an update #bandit updates #and this is not including any potential essays i might post here #dear rp friends if you wonder why i take so long to reply to things now #it's because i started prioritizing the daily word count over rp #which is what i used to try and do during nanowrimo #but when i prioritize rp then it drastically lowers my word count #>.> #anyway #there's probably more than this these are just the ones i remember

[moranmagic]

GDS3 Trial 1 Post Script

I went into this challenge with a general strategy in answering the questions overall. I also had a plan in how to go about answering them in the time given. I will first tell you my plan for answering them, then the strategy I was working under to help guide my answers overall, and finally thoughts on the answers I have and how well I did on each question. I mostly won't provide my answers here yet (I will do that either after the contest ends or at least if I know I am no longer in the running).

My plan to answer them worked as follows. First I read each question and then noted them on my phone. I spent the next day just considering each question and talking to myself about it. That night I made notes of possible answers for each as well as a few bullet points of how I could defend those answers. The next day I recorded myself talking about my best potential answers (it was a point where I was stuck in my car for about an hour, so I channeled Drive to Work and talked about Magic). When I got home I listened to that stuff and took some more notes, then set to work writing essays.First draft done, I went to bed.

The next day I reread my answers and then reread the questions, and then reread my answers. Then I rewrote my essays from scratch after considering what about them should change. I was very happy with the second draft I had for each of the essays and I made more minor revisions and corrections on the next day before submitting them. I'm quite pleased with the overall answers.

My strategy in answering them was to showcase a wide range of abilities; I touched on design and development issues, the integration of creative, player reception, and the larger (standard) environment created that each set is a part of (barring supplemental products of course). Some questions naturally focused on individual mechanic and card design, while others allowed me to talk about bigger concerns with a design (for better or worse, and with one answer in particular I definitely dropped the ball in pursuing this strategy).

Question 1

I sought to emphasize my design skills though they are all currently “amateur.” I don't and have not had a career as a professional in any aspect of design, though my hobbies and passions all revolve around it. I also put great weight on my ability and desire to work with a team in collaborative processes. I'd love the opportunity to expand on these things during a face to face interview.

Question 2

I don't think any non-evergreen mechanic currently satisfies the demands of being made evergreen. Due to that, this was the hardest question of the ten from my perspective. I made the argument for skulk, shifted into green to act as evasion on green's smaller creatures where trample doesn't make sense. I'd make it primary in green and tertiary in black and blue, only to be used there when none of their other evasion makes sense somehow. This would hopefully allow the mechanic to see some good use despite its small design space.

Question 3

This felt like the easiest question to answer. Defender is strictly a downside mechanic, there are no issues with writing out the effect defender has since walls are never crowded with text, and mimicking Propaganda text on cards that lose defender actually saves space and simplifies cards that currently have defender. For example I'd drop defender from Hightide Hermit and write its rules text as “Hightide Hermit can't attack unless you pay EE.” Even in a world where defender remains evergreen, that's a good change to make to cards like that.

Question 4

I've taught a few people to play Magic so I feel really good about my answer with this. I even write it out as a bit of a story to help them see how that first game with a stranger would go. I defined the best possible outcome as the stranger wanting to play Magic after I taught them and that the best way to ensure they want that is for them to have fun. I'd grab two planeswalker decks and we'd start playing. First game open handed so I can look at their cards and advise them directly and they can ask questions without feeling like they're giving up information that should remain hidden. I explain just rules relevant at the time and stay away from any complicated stuff or technical terminology that might trip them up or overwhelm them. When we're done with that first game I ask if they want to play again and then we play a normal game with hands hidden. I haven't always taught players this way, but my methods for teaching the game improve each time I do it (one of the first people I taught was my fiancee and I regret that because I did not do a good job at all, but it gave me a better idea of how to teach Magic by making what not to do clearer).

Question 5

The answer to this question is fun, no doubt in my mind. People come to the game because it's fun and they stick with the game because it's fun. You have to make sure it remains fun. Making a fun experience isn't easy, but I also touched on how there are a lot of different players and each of them gets something different from Magic. So the real trick is learning about all the different ways people enjoy Magic and then making some aspect of the game for each of them. In other words, you aren't just designing for yourself.

Question 6

My answer to this question is complexity. I clarify that complexity isn't all bad; some of it is absolutely needed to make the game as enjoyable as it is. But too much complexity or complexity employed the wrong way, ruins the game. Complexity needs to be watched and it always needs to be in service to a fun experience. I think this answer is solid but it felt a bit rote to me as well. I've read and listened to a lot of Rosewater's stuff on design and I never set out to rehash his ideas here, but he has an incredible understanding of design philosophy and since I'd consider myself a student of his in many respects, that comes through in my answers anyway.

Question 7

I wanted so much more from Cipher. I think its shortcomings are that it was difficult to develop, confined mechanically (it couldn't be used on combat tricks and they chose not to use it on instants due to confusion), and it used weird terminology with encode. My solution is a mechanic I called Spellstrike which I believe has more tools to develop it fairly, works on instants and sorceries and as combat tricks, and used only existing and commonly used Magic terminology. That's all I'll say about it here as I hope to design some of these cards in a challenge later.

Question 8

This is where my strategy in answering really bit me. I've talked about specific card and mechanic design in previous questions so I thought this was a good space to expand to block and larger environment design, as well as creative. I answered that I loved Eldritch Moon but that its reception by the larger player base was soured because it followed Battle for Zendikar block. I didn't touch so much on design issues in the set itself here, nor on what I would change because it would have made the set better for me. Instead I focused on how design and creative failed to recognize that the general flavor of Eldrazi would cause fans to conflate Innistrad and Zendikar Eldrazi as being essentially the same thing even though the designs are literally worlds apart. Delaying Shadows Over Innistrad block I believe would have resulted in better reception of it. Still, my answer here is the biggest miss I had among these questions though I still believe it showcases an ability to learn from every aspect of a design.

Question 9

I considered Aether Revolt and Dragons of Tarkir for this. Dragons of Tarkir took away the best mechanic part of Khans of Tarkir, the clans, but introduced a lot of cool dragons. Ultimately I decided I had more to defend in talking about Aether Revolt instead and could better showcase an eye for design with a specific circumstance I'll mention below. Aether Revolt for me just didn't do much that Kaladesh wasn't already doing and better. I didn't include this in the question as I didn't think of it at the time, but now I wonder if that's because it suffered from the blob problem where decks could too easily just play good stuff so not as many cards had the chance to shine in constructed. In limited it just wasn't doing enough to change draft to make it more enticing to draft this than it was to draft triple Kaladesh. I'm not clear on what could have changed that.

But for the actual question, the aspect I think worked best, was the mechanic Revolt. I went on to discuss how it's not simply a Morbid clone and specifically that it forces you to reassess how you play something as simple as Evolving Wilds. Any mechanic that makes you rethink an aspect of the game that you usually take for granted is doing good work.

Question 10

This is the question I had the most potential answers for: use they/their instead of gendered pronouns in rules text, introduce “discard” to red in the form of “impulsing” cards out of opponent's hands, use draw as terminology to describe moving a card (not permanent) from any zone to a player's hand and discard to describe moving a card from any zone to a player's graveyard, getting rid of the legend rule, making enchantment creatures evergreen, and probably a few others I can't think of now.

I opted to defend removing the legend rule. It allows more fun and I believe it's the one design decision that you can most directly connect to a financial business decision because of the huge market evidenced for Commander players. Again, the answer here played into my goal to show a breadth of vision in my design abilities.

Overall I'm really happy with my answers despite the errors I see now. In the short time available to answer them I believe that I provided strong answers backed up with reasoned judgment and examples, even in the case that I didn't quite answer the question at hand in number eight. I also now feel that I should have worked an explanation for my strategy in answering the rest of the questions into my answer for question one. That would have better explained why 8 missed the mark a bit (though I would have answered differently if I thought at the time I wasn't really answering the question provided). I hope it's enough to get my foot in the door and afford me the opportunity to answer more questions or further elaborate on these as well as perhaps offer up other ideas. You could get a really good idea of what a designer is like just by finding out their reasoning for their answer and I want to be able to share a lot of what I said here with the folks at Wizards of the Coast if the opportunity arises.

#gds3 #mtg

[cherry-wise]

There are about 1,000 days until I turn 30. I calculated that around my birthday this summer, and since then I've been trying to figure out what that means/what I want it to mean to me. I have some goals I'll accomplish by then, and some ideas about what I want life to be like. I'll have my car and student loan paid off about a year from now, hopefully Sean's debt will be paid off in the year or so after that, around the time he turns thirty. We'll be married before I'm thirty, which is cool. The being married soon thing, not that marriage after age 29 isn't cool. Probably we'll have had our wedding reception/party by then, too. I'd like to finally visit my sister and her family in New Zealand in the next couple years--maybe that could be a honeymoon trip. I want to be able to get Ruby a sibling. Maybe I'll finally plant that garden and have some practice making things grow. Maybe I'll get more tattoos. I hope we'll be able to think seriously about buying a house. We'll almost definitely live somewhere else: This house is great size, location, and layout-wise, it's just shitty and its problems make me nervous. Ideally--for me, at least--we'll live with our friends again. I miss living around people I like--and I think i still won't be ready to give up splitting bills three/four ways. I know for sure by thirty I'll have a different job, whether it's switching industries (likely) or getting a promotion where I am (eh) or working for a different company in the same field (also pretty eh). That's definitely something I need to map out and be working towards between now and then. Sean, too. Wonder what his career aspirations will be 2.75 years from now. Wonder if he or I will end up going back to school again. There are some habits I'm going to try to build as I wrap up this decade of my life: find a form of exercise I enjoy and do it a couple times a week. Journal. Tidy. Visit the dentist/gynecologist/optometrist regularly/on schedule. Probably I should read more (in general) (and also make an effort to read new things, instead of rereading my library on repeat). Expand my social circle beyond our six friends from school. Be more generous, patient, and kind, like I think I used to be before my job started getting me down. I often have this feeling that I wish I cared enough about my life to post about it on social media. I don't really know what to do with that thought when I have it, though. I guess now I have a vague idea to put work into figuring it out sometime sooner, rather than later. Either I should a) learn how to care more and be more interesting, how to put myself out there. Or b) learn how to care less/ just more consistently really, and be more comfortable with the amount I'm naturally willing to engage. I don't think it's really about how much I post or what I say, though. It's more about, like, having a connection with the rest of the world. Feeling like I belong to it and it belongs to me. Getting over the urge to keep to myself just because it's easier/not going to bother anybody/probably won't hurt me too much to miss out. I think I have let myself miss out on things, and I'd like to reframe those choices if I can. Maybe nothing in particular needs to happen in these last thousand days of my twenties. I just feel like I need to be doing something toward being a better person and living a better life. And two years is the perfect significant but manageable amount of time, its nice having a known date/round number deadline to work toward. Plus even if all I manage is to clarify my goals and build the framework to support them, its not like I don't have the rest of my life to put them into being. Even if my ideas change at least I'm putting myself out there/putting some thought into what ill be doing with my time and energy.

[harvardukcommon404]

best essay writing service

About me

Pro Essay Writer Service From Samedayessay

Pro Essay Writer Service From Samedayessay Background also consists of your social environments and the way they’ve influenced your perception. In addition, you can highlight intersections between multiple backgrounds and show how each is integral to you. It can be simple so that you can get lost in your phrases after reading and rereading, writing and rewriting. It is greatest to have someone else do your ultimate proofread that will help you determine typos or sentences which might be unclear. In many cases, the additional writing you do for this draft will comprise compelling content material. When I was little, these sentiments felt extra like commands than assumptions. I thought I had to be probably the most unique baby of all time, which was a frightening task, however I tried. I was the one kid within the second grade to paint the solar pink. Alternatively, a extra relaxed way to tackle this immediate is using an informal occasion or realization, which would allow you to present more persona and creativity. An example of this could be studying how to bake along with your mother, thus sparking a newfound connection along with her, allowing you to find out about her previous. Having an extended discussion about life or philosophy along with your father could also suffice, thus sparking more thoughts about your identity. One option is to discuss a proper accomplishment or occasion that displays personal development. Well-executed trains of thought or comparable ways are successful methods to convey ardour for a sure matter. In the case of surfing, the salty water, weightlessness of bobbing over the waves, and fresh air may cater to senses. Alternatively, for less physical subjects, you can use a train of thought and descriptions to show how deeply and vividly your mind dwells on the topic. A tip for expanding on these matters and achieving specificity is to select explicit particulars of the topic that you find intriguing and clarify why. This immediate lets you increase and deepen a seemingly small or simple idea, matter, or idea. As a complete, this immediate lends itself to reflective writing, and more specifically, speaking the reader through your thought processes. In many cases, the exploration of your thought processes and determination-making is extra essential than the actual consequence or concept in question. However, keep away from sounding morally superior (as should you’re the one one who went in opposition to this convention, or that you just’re higher than your friends for doing so). ” After months of quiet anger, my brother finally confronted me. To my disgrace, I had been appallingly unaware of his pain. For bonus points, embrace examples the place you can or relevant quotes from consultants. Often, it’s the additional info like this that earns college students the grade they receive. See how your profile ranks amongst 1000's of other college students using CollegeVine. Calculate your probabilities at your dream colleges and study what areas you have to enhance right now — it solely takes three minutes and it is one hundred% free. During snack time, we could choose between apple juice and grape juice. I favored apple juice extra, but if everybody else was selecting apple, then I had to choose grape. This was how I lived my life, and it was exhausting. This immediate lends itself to consideration of what sides of your personality permit you to overcome adversity. A individual’s background contains experiences, coaching, education, and culture. You can focus on the expertise of growing up, interacting with family, and how relationships have molded who you might be. A background can embrace lengthy-term interactions with arts, music, sciences, sports, writing, and lots of other realized abilities. When my parents discovered about The Smith Academy, we hoped it would be a chance for me to search out not only an academically challenging surroundings, but also a group. And whereas there was concern about Sam, we all believed that given his sociable nature, transferring would be far much less impactful on him than staying put might be on me. If you go this route, ensure to discuss why the ritual was significant and the way specific features of said ritual contributed to your private development. An instance of this could possibly be the that means of turning into an Eagle Scout to you, the accomplishment of being elected to Senior Leadership, or finishing a Confirmation. In the case of spiritual topics, nevertheless, make sure to not get carried away with particulars, and concentrate on the character of your personal development and new understanding — know your viewers. Bottom line, the topic you choose for this immediate ought to, like every matter, highlight your persona, identification, and how you think about the world. “Whenever someone hears my name for the primary time, they comment “Wow, Jensina is a cool name.” She must be fairly cool.

[firstumcschenectady]

“Mountaintop Views” based on  Exodus 24:12-18 and Matthew 17:1-9

When I was 13 I read the Chronicles of Narnia.  They were good, not my favorites, but easily kept my attention to finish all the books. However, it was not until MANY years later that I learned that the books were written as intentional Christian metaphors, and I was floored.  Nothing, at all, in the books had felt like Christianity to me.  I didn't go back to reread them, but I did get peer pressured into seeing some of the movies, at which point I was able to see both: 1. How the story could have been written and understood as Christian and – at the same time – 2. How I entirely missed it.

(The key really being that I was raised in a Christianity that centered on “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me” while those narratives are inherently violent.)

It is a little bit embarrassing though, to have missed the entire point. However, I just didn't see it.  I couldn't.  There is a deep truth to the fact that we can't see things that we don't have the context to make sense of.  The Chronicles of Narnia didn't look to me the way Christianity looked.  Now, there are 2.3 Billion Christians in the world, and I don't think it is reasonable to assume we all understand our faith in the same way.  Sometimes it is a little bit startling to realize just how wide Christianity is and how often it contains its own opposites.  

At the same time, that's sort of the beauty of it all.  People from an incredibly wide range of worldviews, life experiences, and backgrounds are all able to find meaning in our tradition because it is quite adaptable to variation.

The scriptures this week have led me to thinking a lot about perspective, as they both have to do with changing perspectives.  Mountaintops themselves are places where people see things differently.  Some part of that has to do with the effort expended to get to the top, and another part has to do with seeing things from a different angle. From the top of the mountain, it is easier to see the forest than the individual trees.  It is also easier to understand how various parts of the landscape related to each other.

Additionally, both of these stories have transformational experiences occur at the tops of those mountains.  Moses has been called up the mountain by God, and leaves behind the people he is leading in order to follow God's instructions.  As Moses ascends, a cloud descends.  For the people left behind, that may have created a sense of mystery or distance from Moses on the mountain, or perhaps anxiety for his well being.

But for Moses, alone on the mountain in the midst of a dense fog, for 6 days without further instruction, that was likely INTENSE, like a 6 day silent retreat with visual sensory deprivation.  When I had a 6 hour drive home from college in the days before cell phones, the time alone with myself was enough to be disconcerting and clarifying.  6 days alone on a mountain in deep fog would be plenty of time for reflection – to say the least.  There are many people who can't handle 30 seconds of silence – for good reason.  Probably most people in our society get squirmy well before 30 awake minutes without distractions.  But 6 days!!!  Yet, the people I know  who have gone 6 days or more away from distractions all describe it as holy and perspective changing, although not usually easy.

The six days are a passing note in the story, but my goodness I think they matter.  On the seventh day, God calls Moses and the cloud dissipates to reveal the “glory of God” which was so intense the people at the bottom of the mountain could see it.  After 6 days of dense fog, that also must have been a new and different sort of intense.  AND THEN, Moses enters the cloud WITH God and they spend 40 days and 40 nights together.    

This is one of the stories of Moses receiving the 10 Commandments, and it seems to emphasize the holiness and uniqueness of the experience. Moses got A LOT of time with the Divine – way more than his preparatory 6 days.  

This story is cleaned up to fit into a good, faithful telling, but there is an incredible core to it.  As Addison Wright once pointed out, the faith traditions in the Ancient Near East at this time were all god and goddess centric.  That is, people sacrificed at Temples or engaged in behaviors meant to please the gods, with the goal of gaining favors from the gods.  Favors like fertility for people and and flocks, rain for the fields, etc.  Thus faith, worship, and offerings were largely transactional.  Wright believes that something entirely new emerged in the Sinai desert, and that something new is the core of this story.  

That something new was the concept of a God who cared how people treated EACH OTHER rather than simply being interested in self-aggrandizement.  That is, the faith traditions of the area really saw gods and goddesses as being like powerful people – selfish, greedy, and needing to be manipulated into helping out.  But somehow, a small group of desert wanderers came to understand a God (possibly singular, more likely this started as a primary or tribal god for them) whose PRIMARY CONCERN was moral behavior.  And that's the story of the rest of the Bible, right?  The people try to claim that they're all about God and God keeps on responding, “then take care of the vulnerable among you and build a just society.  THAT is what I want.”

This new idea of a God interested in moral human behavior and a just society is the core message lurking under this cleaned up version about Moses, a mountain, a fog, a fire, and a lot of waiting.  It is impossible to tell where the original story lies and where it has been adapted, but the core is powerful and the current version is powerful and they're both worthy of consideration.

The mountaintop experience being such a powerful part of the Jewish story, it makes a lot of sense that the Gospel writer Matthew tells the Transfiguration story as another mountaintop story.  In this case, rather than a dense fog, it is as if a fog has been lifted and the disciples are finally able to see clearly.

From the Gospel writer's perspective, people were confused into thinking that Jesus was just another teacher/healer, but on the mountaintop they saw just how holy and special he really was.  The experience of being close to God on the mountaintop is repeated, with God's own voice speaking.   “This is my child, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” It doesn't get much better than that!  Yet those are the words that whisper through the ages, being shared time and time again, because those are the words that God speaks to each of us. “This is my child, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Imagining being on mountaintop seeing God's delight in Jesus reminds us of why we continue to work in the world as the Body of Christ.  

The perspective change on the mountaintop is interesting.  In these stories, new insights are gleaned, ones that change lives.  I've been thinking about when those perspective shifts can happen for the rest of us.  Climbing mountains remains a good option ;) but what are others?  Some of the most common in the church are mission trips, or participating in new-to-you ministries of the church.  Anytime we meet and engage with people who are different from us, we gain valuable perspective.  And, the more we listen to people, the more we learn.  Sometimes I think perspective shifts are just direct gifts from God.  Other times they come after long term spiritual practice or prayer.  Some require those 6 days of silence in dense fog (or variations thereof).  Julia Cameron in “The Artists Way” says the way not to get stuck is to write 3 pages of longhand every day and have a date with yourself to do something new every week.  Her particular goal is to keep creative juices flowing, but it turns out those are related, aren't they?

One other intersecting piece comes to mind.  When our anxiety is UP, we tend to see the world more in black and white.  So, rather than developing increasing capacities to see many perspectives in the world, we will tend to pick one and STICK WITH IT AT ALL COSTS.  The challenge is, that for most of us today, anxiety is high.  Of course, the  current power structure (of any time and place) benefits from the increased anxiety that leads people to either/or thinking and doubling down into opposing camps.  It maintains the status quo.  The status quo is generally the compromise between two opposing camps, right?  But what is really great for people are win-win situations, which require creative thinking, the capacity to see multiple perspectives, and openness to new ideas.

Now, it turns out we can't spend our whole lives on mountaintops, and we all exist within some parameters of perspective that we can't just will our ways out of.  Furthermore, we LITERALLY can't see things we aren't expecting to see, which makes it SUPER hard to break out of our perspective when it is... in fact.... wrong.

My favorite idea from John Wesley is this, “Sometimes each of us are wrong.  Clearly, if we knew when we are wrong, we would correct ourselves and not be wrong.  So, sometimes when others disagree with us, it is actually a sign that we are currently wrong.  Since we don't know which times those are, we should approach all disagreements with humility.”  

What would have happened if Moses came back down the mountain with a new conception of the Divine and people said, “naw, that doesn't sound right?”  Where would we be today?  Where would the world be?

Transfiguration Sunday is the final Sunday before Lent.  It foreshadows for us the perspective shift of Easter, and by giving us a foretaste of it, gives us the motivation to engage in reflection for Lent to prepare ourselves for Easter.  It turns out that Lent is also meant to give us a perspective change.  It slows us down, offers us time to think, and reflect, and consider.  

There are a lot of ways to expand our worldviews, to glean a better understanding of what is going on all around us.  None of them are perfect, and our capacities to see and understand will be limited, but thanks be to God, we can grow and become.  May we take the view from the mountaintop and let it change us from the inside out.  Amen

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 Pronouns: she/her/hers http://fumcschenectady.org/ 
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

February 23, 2020

#Thinking Church #Progressive Christianity #Sunday before Lent #Transfiguration #FUMC Schenectady #UMC #Sorry about the UMC World #First United Methodist Church of Schenectady #Rev Sara E Baron #Changing Views #Addison Wright #Artists Way #Gain Perspective

[mysticaltyphoonnightmare-blog]

Ten rules for writing fiction Elmore Leonard: Using adverbs is a mortal sin 1 Never open a book with weather. If it's only to create atmosphere, and not a charac­ter's reaction to the weather, you don't want to go on too long. The reader is apt to leaf ahead look­ing for people. There are exceptions. If you happen to be Barry Lopez, who has more ways than an Eskimo to describe ice and snow in his book Arctic Dreams, you can do all the weather reporting you want. 2 Avoid prologues: they can be ­annoying, especially a prologue ­following an introduction that comes after a foreword. But these are ordinarily found in non-fiction. A prologue in a novel is backstory, and you can drop it in anywhere you want. There is a prologue in John Steinbeck's Sweet Thursday, but it's OK because a character in the book makes the point of what my rules are all about. He says: "I like a lot of talk in a book and I don't like to have nobody tell me what the guy that's talking looks like. I want to figure out what he looks like from the way he talks." 3 Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue. The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But "said" is far less intrusive than "grumbled", "gasped", "cautioned", "lied". I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with "she asseverated" and had to stop reading and go to the dictionary. 4 Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said" ... he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances "full of rape and adverbs". 5 Keep your exclamation points ­under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. If you have the knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful. 6 Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose". This rule doesn't require an explanation. I have noticed that writers who use "suddenly" tend to exercise less control in the application of exclamation points. 7 Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly. Once you start spelling words in dialogue phonetically and loading the page with apos­trophes, you won't be able to stop. Notice the way Annie Proulx captures the flavour of Wyoming voices in her book of short stories Close Range. 8 Avoid detailed descriptions of characters, which Steinbeck covered. In Ernest Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants", what do the "Ameri­can and the girl with him" look like? "She had taken off her hat and put it on the table." That's the only reference to a physical description in the story. 9 Don't go into great detail describing places and things, unless you're ­Margaret Atwood and can paint scenes with language. You don't want descriptions that bring the action, the flow of the story, to a standstill. 10 Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. My most important rule is one that sums up the 10: if it sounds like writing, I rewrite it. Elmore Leonard's 10 Rules of Writing is published next month by Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Diana Athill 1 Read it aloud to yourself because that's the only way to be sure the rhythms of the sentences are OK (prose rhythms are too complex and subtle to be thought out – they can be got right only by ear). 2 Cut (perhaps that should be CUT): only by having no ­inessential words can every essential word be made to count. 3 You don't always have to go so far as to murder your darlings – those turns of phrase or images of which you felt extra proud when they appeared on the page – but go back and look at them with a very beady eye. Almost always it turns out that they'd be better dead. (Not every little twinge of satisfaction is suspect – it's the ones which amount to a sort of smug glee you must watch out for.) Margaret Atwood 1 Take a pencil to write with on aeroplanes. Pens leak. But if the pencil breaks, you can't sharpen it on the plane, because you can't take knives with you. Therefore: take two pencils. 2 If both pencils break, you can do a rough sharpening job with a nail file of the metal or glass type. 3 Take something to write on. Paper is good. In a pinch, pieces of wood or your arm will do. 4 If you're using a computer, always safeguard new text with a ­memory stick. 5 Do back exercises. Pain is distracting. 6 Hold the reader's attention. (This is likely to work better if you can hold your own.) But you don't know who the reader is, so it's like shooting fish with a slingshot in the dark. What ­fascinates A will bore the pants off B. 7 You most likely need a thesaurus, a rudimentary grammar book, and a grip on reality. This latter means: there's no free lunch. Writing is work. It's also gambling. You don't get a pension plan. Other people can help you a bit, but ­essentially you're on your own. ­Nobody is making you do this: you chose it, so don't whine. 8 You can never read your own book with the innocent anticipation that comes with that first delicious page of a new book, because you wrote the thing. You've been backstage. You've seen how the rabbits were smuggled into the hat. Therefore ask a reading friend or two to look at it before you give it to anyone in the publishing business. This friend should not be someone with whom you have a ­romantic relationship, unless you want to break up. 9 Don't sit down in the middle of the woods. If you're lost in the plot or blocked, retrace your steps to where you went wrong. Then take the other road. And/or change the person. Change the tense. Change the opening page. 10 Prayer might work. Or reading ­something else. Or a constant visual­isation of the holy grail that is the finished, published version of your resplendent book. Roddy Doyle 1 Do not place a photograph of your ­favourite author on your desk, especially if the author is one of the famous ones who committed suicide. 2 Do be kind to yourself. Fill pages as quickly as possible; double space, or write on every second line. Regard every new page as a small triumph ­– 3 Until you get to Page 50. Then calm down, and start worrying about the quality. Do feel anxiety – it's the job. 4 Do give the work a name as quickly as possible. Own it, and see it. Dickens knew Bleak House was going to be called Bleak House before he started writing it. The rest must have been easy. 5 Do restrict your browsing to a few websites a day. Don't go near the online bookies – unless it's research. 6 Do keep a thesaurus, but in the shed at the back of the garden or behind the fridge, somewhere that demands travel or effort. Chances are the words that come into your head will do fine, eg "horse", "ran", "said". 7 Do, occasionally, give in to temptation. Wash the kitchen floor, hang out the washing. It's research. 8 Do change your mind. Good ideas are often murdered by better ones. I was working on a novel about a band called the Partitions. Then I decided to call them the Commitments. 9 Do not search amazon.co.uk for the book you haven't written yet. 10 Do spend a few minutes a day working on the cover biog – "He divides his time between Kabul and Tierra del Fuego." But then get back to work. Helen Dunmore 1 Finish the day's writing when you still want to continue. 2 Listen to what you have written. A dud rhythm in a passage of dialogue may show that you don't yet understand the characters well enough to write in their voices. 3 Read Keats's letters. 4 Reread, rewrite, reread, rewrite. If it still doesn't work, throw it away. It's a nice feeling, and you don't want to be cluttered with the corpses of poems and stories which have everything in them except the life they need. 5 Learn poems by heart. 6 Join professional organisations which advance the collective rights of authors. 7 A problem with a piece of writing often clarifies itself if you go for a long walk. 8 If you fear that taking care of your children and household will damage your writing, think of JG Ballard. 9 Don't worry about posterity – as Larkin (no sentimentalist) observed "What will survive of us is love". Geoff Dyer 1 Never worry about the commercial possibilities of a project. That stuff is for agents and editors to fret over – or not. Conversation with my American publisher. Me: "I'm writing a book so boring, of such limited commercial appeal, that if you publish it, it will probably cost you your job." Publisher: "That's exactly what makes me want to stay in my job." 2 Don't write in public places. In the early 1990s I went to live in Paris. The usual writerly reasons: back then, if you were caught writing in a pub in England, you could get your head kicked in, whereas in Paris, dans les cafés . . . Since then I've developed an aversion to writing in public. I now think it should be done only in private, like any other lavatorial activity. 3 Don't be one of those writers who sentence themselves to a lifetime of sucking up to Nabokov. 4 If you use a computer, constantly refine and expand your autocorrect settings. The only reason I stay loyal to my piece-of-shit computer is that I have invested so much ingenuity into building one of the great auto­correct files in literary history. Perfectly formed and spelt words emerge from a few brief keystrokes: "Niet" becomes "Nietzsche", "phoy" becomes  ­"photography" and so on. ­Genius! 5 Keep a diary. The biggest regret of my writing life is that I have never kept a journal or a diary. 6 Have regrets. They are fuel. On the page they flare into desire. 7 Have more than one idea on the go at any one time. If it's a choice between writing a book and doing nothing I will always choose the latter. It's only if I have an idea for two books that I choose one rather than the other. I ­always have to feel that I'm bunking off from something. 8 Beware of clichés. Not just the ­clichés that Martin Amis is at war with. There are clichés of response as well as expression. There are clichés of observation and of thought – even of conception. Many novels, even quite a few adequately written ones, are ­clichés of form which conform to clichés of expectation. 9 Do it every day. Make a habit of putting your observations into words and gradually this will become instinct. This is the most important rule of all and, naturally, I don't follow it. 10 Never ride a bike with the brakes on. If something is proving too difficult, give up and do something else. Try to live without resort to per­severance. But writing is all about ­perseverance. You've got to stick at it. In my 30s I used to go to the gym even though I hated it. The purpose of ­going to the gym was to postpone the day when I would stop going. That's what writing is to me: a way of ­postponing the day when I won't do it any more, the day when I will sink into a depression so profound it will be indistinguishable from perfect bliss. Anne Enright 1 The first 12 years are the worst. 2 The way to write a book is to actually write a book. A pen is useful, typing is also good. Keep putting words on the page. 3 Only bad writers think that their work is really good. 4 Description is hard. Remember that all description is an opinion about the world. Find a place to stand. 5 Write whatever way you like. Fiction is made of words on a page; reality is made of something else. It doesn't matter how "real" your story is, or how "made up": what matters is its necessity. 6 Try to be accurate about stuff. 7 Imagine that you are dying. If you had a terminal disease would you ­finish this book? Why not? The thing that annoys this 10-weeks-to-live self is the thing that is wrong with the book. So change it. Stop arguing with yourself. Change it. See? Easy. And no one had to die. 8 You can also do all that with whiskey. 9 Have fun. 10 Remember, if you sit at your desk for 15 or 20 years, every day, not ­counting weekends, it changes you. It just does. It may not improve your temper, but it fixes something else. It makes you more free. Richard Ford 1 Marry somebody you love and who thinks you being a writer's a good idea. 2 Don't have children. 3 Don't read your reviews. 4 Don't write reviews. (Your judgment's always tainted.) 5 Don't have arguments with your wife in the morning, or late at night. 6 Don't drink and write at the same time. 7 Don't write letters to the editor. (No one cares.) 8 Don't wish ill on your colleagues. 9 Try to think of others' good luck as encouragement to yourself. 10 Don't take any shit if you can ­possibly help it. Jonathan Franzen 1 The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator. 2 Fiction that isn't an author's personal adventure into the frightening or the unknown isn't worth writing for anything but money. 3 Never use the word "then" as a ­conjunction – we have "and" for this purpose. Substituting "then" is the lazy or tone-deaf writer's non-solution to the problem of too many "ands" on the page. 4 Write in the third person unless a ­really distinctive first-person voice ­offers itself irresistibly. 5 When information becomes free and universally accessible, voluminous research for a novel is devalued along with it. 6 The most purely autobiographical ­fiction requires pure invention. Nobody ever wrote a more auto­biographical story than "The Meta­morphosis". 7 You see more sitting still than chasing after. 8 It's doubtful that anyone with an internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction. 9 Interesting verbs are seldom very interesting. 10 You have to love before you can be relentless. Esther Freud 1 Cut out the metaphors and similes. In my first book I promised myself I wouldn't use any and I slipped up ­during a sunset in chapter 11. I still blush when I come across it. 2 A story needs rhythm. Read it aloud to yourself. If it doesn't spin a bit of magic, it's missing something. 3 Editing is everything. Cut until you can cut no more. What is left often springs into life. 4 Find your best time of the day for writing and write. Don't let anything else interfere. Afterwards it won't matter to you that the kitchen is a mess. 5 Don't wait for inspiration. Discipline is the key. 6 Trust your reader. Not everything needs to be explained. If you really know something, and breathe life into it, they'll know it too. 7 Never forget, even your own rules are there to be broken. Neil Gaiman 1 Write. 2 Put one word after another. Find the right word, put it down. 3 Finish what you're writing. Whatever you have to do to finish it, finish it. 4 Put it aside. Read it pretending you've never read it before. Show it to friends whose opinion you respect and who like the kind of thing that this is. 5 Remember: when people tell you something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong. 6 Fix it. Remember that, sooner or later, before it ever reaches perfection, you will have to let it go and move on and start to write the next thing. Perfection is like chasing the horizon. Keep moving. 7 Laugh at your own jokes. 8 The main rule of writing is that if you do it with enough assurance and confidence, you're allowed to do whatever you like. (That may be a rule for life as well as for writing. But it's definitely true for writing.) So write your story as it needs to be written. Write it ­honestly, and tell it as best you can. I'm not sure that there are any other rules. Not ones that matter. David Hare 1 Write only when you have something to say. 2 Never take advice from anyone with no investment in the outcome. 3 Style is the art of getting yourself out of the way, not putting yourself in it. 4 If nobody will put your play on, put it on yourself. 5 Jokes are like hands and feet for a painter. They may not be what you want to end up doing but you have to master them in the meanwhile. 6 Theatre primarily belongs to the young. 7 No one has ever achieved consistency as a screenwriter. 8 Never go to a TV personality festival masquerading as a literary festival. 9 Never complain of being misunderstood. You can choose to be understood, or you can choose not to. 10 The two most depressing words in the English language are "literary fiction". PD James 1 Increase your word power. Words are the raw material of our craft. The greater your vocabulary the more ­effective your writing. We who write in English are fortunate to have the richest and most versatile language in the world. Respect it. 2 Read widely and with discrimination. Bad writing is contagious. 3 Don't just plan to write – write. It is only by writing, not dreaming about it, that we develop our own style. 4 Write what you need to write, not what is currently popular or what you think will sell. 5 Open your mind to new experiences, particularly to the study of other ­people. Nothing that happens to a writer – however happy, however tragic – is ever wasted. AL Kennedy 1 Have humility. Older/more ­experienced/more convincing writers may offer rules and varieties of advice. ­Consider what they say. However, don't automatically give them charge of your brain, or anything else – they might be bitter, twisted, burned-out, manipulative, or just not very like you. 2 Have more humility. Remember you don't know the limits of your own abilities. Successful or not, if you keep pushing beyond yourself, you will enrich your own life – and maybe even please a few strangers. 3 Defend others. You can, of course, steal stories and attributes from family and friends, fill in filecards after lovemaking and so forth. It might be better to celebrate those you love – and love itself – by writing in such a way that everyone keeps their privacy and dignity intact. 4 Defend your work. Organisations, institutions and individuals will often think they know best about your work – especially if they are paying you. When you genuinely believe their decisions would damage your work – walk away. Run away. The money doesn't matter that much. 5 Defend yourself. Find out what keeps you happy, motivated and creative. 6 Write. No amount of self-inflicted misery, altered states, black pullovers or being publicly obnoxious will ever add up to your being a writer. Writers write. On you go. 7 Read. As much as you can. As deeply and widely and nourishingly and ­irritatingly as you can. And the good things will make you remember them, so you won't need to take notes. 8 Be without fear. This is impossible, but let the small fears drive your rewriting and set aside the large ones ­until they behave – then use them, maybe even write them. Too much fear and all you'll get is silence. 9 Remember you love writing. It wouldn't be worth it if you didn't. If the love fades, do what you need to and get it back. 10 Remember writing doesn't love you. It doesn't care. Nevertheless, it can behave with remarkable generosity. Speak well of it, encourage others, pass it on.