Summer of Supervillainy

A secret hideout, a werewolf serum, and a dream

29,396 notes

I think a lot of people don’t understand that when we talk about these issues—blackface, rape jokes, the appropriation of marginalized cultures, and so on—we are having an ethical conversation, not a legal one. There is no thought police. No one’s coming to your house and carting you off to Insensitivity Prison. But you, as a person living on this planet, get to make a choice whether you want to hurt people or help people. Whether you want to listen or shut people out. I can’t imagine why you’d choose “defensive shithead” over “nice lady capable of empathy,” but okey dokey.

Oklahoma Governor’s Daughter Enrages Native American Protestors (via nerdymouse)

Okey dokey.

(via rachelfershleiser)

(Source: brutereason, via blue-author)

17,184 notes

mechanicusdeus:

purebaldfury:

faidame:

wat rings u got bitch?

Thus the myth of the knight lumbering around like Frankenstein is busted

This myth bugs me to no end, so let me clear it up here and now:
A made-to-measure suit of full plate armour is (and ergo was) less cumbersome to wear than, say, an ill-fitting all-weather coat. It was expensive as heck, but the movement it afforded was surprisingly non-restrictive. Also remember that the men who wore these suits were usually quite physically fit (medieval knights - who were among the few who could afford the armour - were trained to fight from around 6 years-old), and were accustomed to training while wearing them.
Plate armour was moderately heavy, granted, but the weight was optimally distributed over the body, meaning the mostly costly aspect of wearing it was increased fatigue. It’s not heavy in the same way a hiking backpack is heavy. Any accounts of a knight being unable to rise after being knocked down were most likely because he was injured, dehydrated, or just plain exhausted - all of which being common in battle anyway. Regardless, it’s unlikely that it’s because his armour prevented him from moving… and the fallacy of knights requiring cranes to get onto their horses is just stupid.
The idea that full plate was sooo impractical is ludicrous; if it were, people wouldn’t have bothered with it.

mechanicusdeus:

purebaldfury:

faidame:

wat rings u got bitch?

Thus the myth of the knight lumbering around like Frankenstein is busted

This myth bugs me to no end, so let me clear it up here and now:

A made-to-measure suit of full plate armour is (and ergo was) less cumbersome to wear than, say, an ill-fitting all-weather coat. It was expensive as heck, but the movement it afforded was surprisingly non-restrictive. Also remember that the men who wore these suits were usually quite physically fit (medieval knights - who were among the few who could afford the armour - were trained to fight from around 6 years-old), and were accustomed to training while wearing them.

Plate armour was moderately heavy, granted, but the weight was optimally distributed over the body, meaning the mostly costly aspect of wearing it was increased fatigue. It’s not heavy in the same way a hiking backpack is heavy. Any accounts of a knight being unable to rise after being knocked down were most likely because he was injured, dehydrated, or just plain exhausted - all of which being common in battle anyway. Regardless, it’s unlikely that it’s because his armour prevented him from moving… and the fallacy of knights requiring cranes to get onto their horses is just stupid.

The idea that full plate was sooo impractical is ludicrous; if it were, people wouldn’t have bothered with it.

(via arcadiasilver)

1,710 notes

kate-kitty asked: Do you have any advice on writing a character with a mental illness with no firsthand experience with said illness?

blue-author:

madamethursday:

fixyourwritinghabits:

Research research research research talk to people with experience with the illness research research research get feedback from people with experience with the illness research research research *DEEP BREATH* research

Ugh. I hate when this piece of advice is handed out to readers with no caveats or explanations attached. It’s crap. 

First response should be that you, writer person, need to sit the fuck down and really think hard about why you’re writing about a person with an illness you don’t have. As a mentally ill person and a writer, I’m telling you that this needs to be step number one. You need to examine your motives. Is the illness an organic, developed facet of a fully rounded character or is a plot device that creates the kind of drama you want without you having to work for it. Is it your way of short handing and shading in characterization without having to write it. Are you using it to show evilness, helplessness, innocence, tragedy, comedy, being super magical? Because I’ve read those stories and they piss me off every time. 

When you do get to the research, somebody needs to inform you that there’s not just one stage of it. You need to research your research. And then you need to research so that you can do the next stage of research right. 

Meaning? Read a lot of shit and take a lot of time with it because going to other human beings with your hand out is a whole other ballgame and you better sure as fuck do it respectfully and appropriately. 

Do not corner some poor soul who you discovered to have an illness or the one you’re writing about and chase the down and say: “Hey, you, over there. You’re crazy. Tell me what crazy is like because I’m writing a thing.” Do not fucking reduce us to your personal vending machine of wisdom. Do not reduce us to our mental illnesses because that’s all you’re interested in. 

Do not track Tumblr tags, run down people who are just writing personal posts that get maybe five likes and a reblog, and then drop this crap in their ask boxes. Don’t creepily follow them just to get the goods on their illness, not caring one whit about how they’d feel or them as a person. That’s shitty on all possible levels. 

And do not just cut and paste. Do not just read a few things and decide to weave that into your story as if it’s enough, as if it’s not a kind of stealing. Don’t do this just to collect people’s stories and mish mash them into something that makes you feel like your story is now authentic.

When you do phase one research, you should do it well enough that when it comes time to do phase two (talking to real humans), you know where to go and where NOT to go, and you know what NOT to ask because it’s been asked a million times before. 

By the time you get through with the non-interactive part of research, you should know better. You should be able to find blogs that specifically exist to ANSWER QUESTIONS about the topic and the questions you ask should not be 101 level questions. You need to be listening to the deep cuts from the album by the time you start talking to ANYONE. 

During all this research don’t ever lose your humility. Seriously. And be aware that if you’re neurotypical/not ill, you WILL get criticism but you will also still get more credibility with other neurotypical/not ill people than actually mentally ill people get for the same thing. People will listen to an outsider who doesn’t live this more than to someone like me who does. That’s shitty as hell. Acknowledge that always. 

And when you do get kick back, take it. I don’t care if it’s a body blow to your damn ego, take it. Accept it, learn from it, and take it. And don’t argue with it. As a writer, it’s a good idea NEVER EVER to argue with any criticism or critique and a pretty good one never to even respond to them. Let people’s reading of something be their reading and don’t even get into it with them.

No one ever changed my mind about a book I didn’t like by arguing with me, including authors. I’ve had this happen. Indeed, it cements my assertion that the book is lousy and the author lousier. 

So just fucking be aware it isn’t about research so you get a science problem right. It’s people’s lives and minds and bodies and lived realities. Research is an act of humility, and admission that you don’t know and never will completely know the way someone who lives this does but you want to get as close as you can, and it is an admission that you know you owe this work, this respect, this dedication to making sure you don’t further stereotypes or convince people of a lie. Research is saying: “You’re the experts here and therefore I should make sure I’m prepared before I step even one little toe onto your turf.”

THAT’S my advice on writing a character with a mental illness. 

^Commentary.

The thing about writing is that you have to take responsibility for it, and the thing about responsibility is that it’s fractally recursive: you look at it from a distance, and then you move in closer and see a whole ‘nother level that looks the same as the first, and then you zoom in, and you see another level…

When you decide to write about an experience you don’t have, you’re taking responsibility for this decision. At the outside level, this means that if you screw up, you have no one to blame but yourself. You’re responsible for any harm your writing causes to others. You’re responsible for any criticism that comes your way. You’re responsible.

So you take the time to research. That’s the next level of taking responsibility. This doesn’t mean you’re no longer accountable, though. You’re still accountable. You’re still responsible for any harm you do. You’re still responsible for criticism that results from that harm.

So you run your writing by individuals with direct experience. That’s another level of taking responsibility. Again, it doesn’t mean that you’re no longer accountable. You’re still responsible for the outcome of your writing.

It’s infinitely fractal. You can always go deeper. You can always try harder. You can always do better. And you’re still always ultimately responsible.

So the question isn’t, “What’s the bare minimum I need to do in order to be safe?”

It’s, “Am I prepared to accept responsibility for what I write?” If the answer is no, then do more work until you reach a level it becomes yes… or else write something else.

6,077 notes

As terms like womanism, intersectionality, and women of color enter the mainstream, it is important to remember that they do not exist in a vacuum. They were created by Black women to address the ways in which we feel excluded from mainstream feminism. Kimberle Crenshaw, Patricia Hill Collins, Loretta Ross, Audre Lorde, and bell hooks are more than names to pluck convenient quotes from when it suits you. They are Black feminists, and they are part of a long tradition that can be traced back to Ida B. Wells-Barnett and beyond. So when your idea of feminism in 2013 harkens back to the racist, sexist rhetoric thrown at Wells-Barnett by Susan B. Anthony and Frances Willard, then what kind of movement are you trying to build? If your definition of feminism is rooted in Mammy myths, what can be built with you? Are you fighting for equality for all, or your right to be equal in oppressing Black women?
Mikki Kendall (karnythia), "For Black Women, Everything is a Feminist Issue" (via so-treu)

(via blue-author)

34,735 notes

lifeandotheroddtales:

Different Sherlock portrayals as cats. Because I can.

House is the uncontrollable crazy cat.

Robert Downey Jr. cat is the flaunting type.

BBC Sherlock is the brooding cat.

Elementary Sherlock is the cuddly one.

Canon Sherlock is an awesome YouTube keyboard cat that Watson is always impressed by.

(via deliciousghosts)