I Have No Words Other Than The Simple Fact That I Have Exhausted The Current Amount Of Tma Au Fics That

Horror podcast? Are you sure Malevolent isn’t a comedy????

@spacestationdaedalus

Decided to draw my take on a human John Doe (and he’s chibi because I said so >:3)

Oh thank god this exists!!!

I have compiled a list of Arthur’s scar leaving injuries so people(me) don’t forget(still me) to draw them (i’ll update this when new significant injuries happen and at the end of this i’ll do a tl;dr of what Arthur’s current state might look like now, leaving out uncertainties and including things like starvation and shaving.

Part 1 “The Dark World”

There were no blood mentions regarding Parker’s body and I’m taking a shot in the dark and saying the method was strangulation (unless John just used some weird magic and not Arth’s body). When being strangled, most will panic and claw at the aggressors wrists- But then wouldn’t there be blood? Maybe enough time passed for it to dry and remain hidden under Arthur’s sleeves. I dunno I just like the idea of that moment leaving scars.

Part 3 “The Mansion”

There was a car crash (surprising it only happened on the duo’s 2nd drive..). Arth literally had to climb through a seat to get to the baby in the back however the baby remained unharmed so maybe he could’ve been unharmed as well? Buutttt he did black out for a split second and said he couldn’t think straight. I believe a small superficial head scar to be possible along with some tiny other facial scaring all, caused by the glass windshield shattering a bit due to the crash. After all, there was sound of stepping over glass when he walked away from the wreck..

Arth also fell through a wooden stairway but no attention was drawn to any possible injury on his body and I realllyy doubt that he wasn’t harmed in some way.. maybe thin scars were created by the wood scratching thin areas like the hands and ankles or areas that scar easily but you just happen to be able to ignore it in the moment, y’know?

Part 4 “The Voices”

Near the end of this episode, Arthur gets huge damage to the stomach causing it to bleed. Pretty sure it was inflicted by a kitchen knife or something larger. Art said something along the lines of his entire waistline feeling wet with blood and it was enough damage for John to say the words “if this is the end…” and some sappy shit. Definitely a deep cut.

(Wow… dying from a botched c-section… not unbelievable but very uncommon for a man who, unless I skipped an episode, was not pregnant…)

Part 9 “The Boat”

Everyyyyone knows about the 3 shots Arthur took to the chest but i’ll mark it anyway. The first two shots seemed to only be like “OW” but he could probably keep going. By that excellent deduction I conclude they didn’t hit the heart. The third one probably did tho, sounded like he was seeing the light- or well, the dark at that point.

Part 12 “The End”

These little tadpole guy things tries to slither into arthur’s arm, arthur has to press lighter against skin to stop the thing from getting further in, bleeding a bit, possible scar + burn scar.

Part 13 “The Dreamlands”

Now it’s time to bring up the wooden pinkie. The duo bit it off to give the trees a friend, cauterized the wound, and a wooden pinkie grew out. There could be burn scarring where the wooden replacement pinkies grew out.

Part 15 “The Storm”

The injury caused here is kinda the entire reason I decided to go back through all the episodes and check because I forgot about this one entirely. Here the duo just barely escape a dark storm by hiding behind a large boat bitten by rust. The wind tore off some skin on the right side of Arthy’s face and it was apparently difficult to see out of their right eye until they cleaned it.

Part 17 “The Fall”

The monster thing threw a rock at Art from ceiling which resulted in a deep cut in his bicep. His shoulder dislocated on the same arm and from the fact that Arthur (who only has control of the right hand) had to set it back I think the damage was on the left arm.

Part 20 “The King” + “Coda”

Arthur got cut by one of the King’s dancer’s cut Arthur although it isn’t clear where it sounded like it drew blood (aka it scarred). Arthur also stabbed himself in the throat, just missing his jugular. That definitely left a kayne-knife-shaped scar.

Part 23 “The Past”

A piece of Arthur’s right ear was torn off, ouch.

(gonna include this here because I don’t want to go back and check which episode this happened in but Arthur did shave at like the beginning of the season after he got to the weird bar. I remember because he kept going on about deserving a wash and a shave and yellow was so pissy about it)

Part 27 “The Roots”

And now everyone’s favorite episode! We know Arth isn’t gonna die so i’m considering what the marks left by this near death experience may be. Arthur gets pierced by some tendril thing through the stomach so depending on what means through which it heals, there’s gonna be a huge scar there (i can’t imagine it just stays an open hole.. or it could, who knows!) Also, based on how the creature thing cut it out, there should be a gash in Arth’s head from where john cut the monster thingy’s tendril out.

tl;dr

Arthur is (circa part 26 not 27) a very thin, clean-shaven man showing signs of starvation covered in scars with the most significant being the superficial scarring on the right side of his face, a deep scar across his stomach covering the entirety of his waistline, 3 small wounds to the chest caused by bullets, a wooden pinkie on his left hand, a deep scar over his throat, a deep cut in his left bicep, a piece of his right ear bitten off, a burn scar on his arm where he had to burn a tadpole out of it.

maybe I did want to get the next chapter out before I got to college but. packing. moving.

but i've got tonight to myself and if it's not finished by tonight, it WILL BE before classes.

Oh ho ho, as soon as I find the energy and motivation to hyperfixate on my hobbies again it’s all over for you fucks

Maintaining Scope of Violence in Your Story's World

I saw an interesting discussion in the Baldur's Gate 3 subreddit, commenting how a player's immersion was broken when a version of the player character, known as "The Dark Urge", is apparently to blame for a particularly brutal murder and yet the companion characters don't turn on him/her/them immediately. The commenter was baffled given the brutality of the killing. Yet many replies pointed out that other members of the party are also murderers or tapdancing on the edge of committing atrocities, not to mention other mitigating circumstances that it would be spoilers to go into.

This got me thinking about scope of violence in genre fiction and how, on top of all the other difficult jobs the writer has before them, establishing what level of violence is "commonplace" vs "shocking" can be a surprisingly delicate process.

(Cut for length. Includes references to Game of Thrones, House of the Dragon, John Wick, and NBC's Hannibal in an exploration of how to establish the scope and scale of on-screen violence. TW for discussions of violence against children in shows like GoT and HotD, though it is largely in abstract terms.)

I'm reminded of "House of the Dragon" (HotD) which, I must confess, I found to have rather patchy and uneven writing.

One moment in HotD that I found rather dissonant, shall we say, was when a child of the nobility loses his eye in a brawl with other children. His mother, an aristocrat, is understandably horrified and enraged. However, some of the threats she makes to equally powerful Houses over the incident feel, dare I say, disproportionate to the event, given that her threats could lead to the world as she knows it being plunged into civil war, all over what amounts to a tussle between children, albeit one that ends in a particularly gruesome manner.

On the one hand, any modern mother likely would completely freak out at such an appalling injury as a lost eye from a knife fight between children. That would be a major shock to a modern community, where such violence is quite rare. And in fairness, the aristocrats of the world of "Game of Thrones" and HotD by extension are largely insulated by their privilege from the day to day violence we see portrayed in the series. If anyone was realistically going to have a modern response to a child's maiming, it would be the sheltered daughter of a noble house with regards to her beloved child.

However, as understandable as her reaction might be to modern viewers and to those who take into account her sheltered upbringing, in my mind, the show's narrative wobbled there in terms of establishing the level of violence that is considered commonplace in the world of HotD/GoT. In the first season of Game of Thrones, we famously saw a child pushed out of a window, permanently disabled and left in a coma for months, and while this is a major event that creates a great deal of tension and conflict, ultimately the family after their attempts at individual revenge the fact is they can't start a civil war over this single event. So in a way we're sort of left with: this is just a thing that happens that we have to suck up and deal with, even if certain individuals might wish to and continue to pursue a personal vendetta. Couple that with commoner children being murdered and the deaths going completely unremarked upon by wider society, we're left with the impression of a world in which brutality, even brutality against children which would grind a modern community to a halt, is simply an ugly and relatively common part of life. A life with so much ugliness and personal violence that it really almost gets lost amidst all the other horrors.

Which makes the HotD mother's reaction feel... disproportionate. Not in relation to her child's suffering, which is entirely understandable, but her view of what retaliation constitutes a proportional response comes across as hysterical. Too modern. Children are horrifically injured in the GoT/HotD world all the time. Frankly, by comparison, a lost eye is almost minor compared to a loss of mobility in a rigorously martial world, access to which Bran lost with his fall. We don't get as good of a set up of what the conflicting morals of this world are, we don't get the comparison between commoner and noble children as clearly as in GoT, we don't really get all the conflicting views of "When is it normal to start a civil war over a child's injury?" - the sense of scope and scale of violence and how we and the characters are supposed to react to it... wobbles.

Along these lines, I've also pointed out that in shows like NBC's Hannibal, the show is scrupulously careful about not really referencing global events like wars. In my mind, there's a simple reason for that. Your average drone attack on civilians in the Middle East kills more innocent people by accident than Hannibal Lecter has ever killed in his entire murderous career. Compared to weapons of war, one murderous serial killer is barely a rounding error in terms of death and human suffering. So the show has to remain almost claustrophobically intimate so we never get confronted with the "So what?" of the individual death and human suffering Hannibal and the other serial killers bring about on a very close, personal basis. The horror style is meant to force us to imagine ourselves if we were the victims (or the killer) in these incredibly intimate murders. If our suffering was writ large. If every individual death was massively significant. But this is in contrast with real world mass casualty events which would dwarf many times all of the deaths in the Hannibal show combined.

As a final example, the moment the first season of "True Detective" lost me was when the value of a single life also wobbled dramatically. The conceit of the show is that a single murder, or a half dozen at most, murders of young white women is worthy of a major, multi-year investigation. Yet when the investigation inadvertently leads to an outbreak of violence in a predominantly black community, shown almost immediately to kill more people (in front of their children, even) than were lost in the entire murder spree of white women that's being investigated, the show didn't seem to care at all. Individual white female victims were worthy of a breathless investigation into their untimely loss, but twice that number of black people killed in an outbreak of violence directly linked to the investigation didn't even seem worthy of commentary or reflection at all. The value of a single human life was no longer consistent. If these deaths aren't worthy of justice, then why should I care about the few individual deaths being investigated?

As with any measuring of scope in fiction, it's very hard for the author to do alone. It really is an instance where an outside pair of eyes is incredibly valuable.

But things to keep in mind while crafting a narrative around violence is just how much are readers or viewers supposed to be alarmed by individual acts of violence. It's common and indeed necessary for modern media to establish the rules of its world. Even stories nominally set in "our" world actually do almost as much worldbuilding as any fantasy tale in this respect. In a cop drama where each episode is built around a single murder, we need to inhabit a world where a single murder is worthy of dozens of people spending time and resources bringing the killer to justice. In such a world, a mass casualty event of several deaths should be shocking. To this end, like in NBC's Hannibal, it's probably best to avoid mentions of mass casualty events caused by war or natural disasters.

By contrast, an action film like John Wick might place less value on individual deaths (beyond the motivating deaths of a single dog, which is thoroughly commented on within the story as feeling disproportionate and therein lies much of what makes the plot so unique. I'd argue it is also the cutest dog ever born, but I digress). We're not going to see a lurid headline, "John Wick murders 26 local men in cold blood, read about this tragic loss along with quotes by their devastated wives and children on page 6". To a certain extent, the violence there is meant to be just shocking enough to thrill, but we're not meant to get too invested in the details of the actual body count.

And, to go even more extreme, in war or disaster movies, we see or have narrated that thousands have died at a time. Again, to go back to Game of Thrones/House of the Dragon, one reason it's hard to see the mother's reaction to her child's maiming as anything but a bit disproportionate is because we see with such brutality hundreds if not thousands of men, women, and children dying directly or indirectly as a result of war. While it's understandable that a mother would burn the world down for an injury to her child, we're not well placed to agree with or sympathize with her reactions on the broader scale, in terms of retribution that would lead to war, against a backdrop of brutal mass casualty events in the thousands where even more families are devastated and more children injured or killed.

As a final, positive word on the Game of Thrones universe, the early seasons of the GoT were actually very good at controlling the audience's reaction to the scope of violence. Namely, the Battle of the Blackwater sticks out in my mind. The world of GoT is so grounded in the mud, in ugly, personal but intimate violence done with hands or blades, otherwise rudimentary weapons, that the first time we see an explosion on a near-modern scale feels as genuinely breathtaking to modern eyes as it might have to the Medieval-eseque eyes of that world. Yet there are movies chock-full of explosions where the explosions lose impact and importance, become background noise, because they're simply one of many. By rigorously tamping down and limiting the scope and type of violence to largely hand to hand combat, Game of Thrones set up a moment where modern warfare-style explosions are awe-inspiring. Against that backdrop, the appearance of fire-breathing dragons on the battlefield is also arresting, though their capabilities would likely be dwarfed by a modern fighter jet and many viewers of GoT would be familiar with films where the scope and scale of violence is much bigger and more explosive. It feels big in GoT because the scope and scale has been so small to that point.

Once you as a writer have established the modernity of your violence, the scope and scale of it, the average body count, the importance of a single human life, it's important to stick to it. If a character has a differing view, then they should be noted as having it by the narrative. A grizzled war veteran might shrug at a small town murder investigation of a single individual, but a sleepy town might lose its mind over it. In the modern world, the lives of children are put on the highest pedestal, but once you establish in your world that some children's lives are of lower value, then showing a mother act with an understandable modern sensibility of horror and outrage still needs to be commented on so we understand where her reaction falls within her society, especially if it's in contrast. That is what teaches us how to watch and appreciate the narrative choices as they're meant to be appreciated.

Why is this my life?

A quick TLDR summary of potential words to use instead of “Tribe”:

- nation

- people/peoples

- community

- chiefdom

- kingroup

- village

- kingdom

- civilisation

- mob (used specifically by and for First Nations Australians)

Where to use each will come down to context

for example “chiefdom” or “kingdom” might be better used communicating the specific social/political structure of certain peoples, while words like “community” or “village” might be better employed by members of the community as a casual referential term (I.e. “we better get back, the rest of the village might be wondering where we are”)

Of course, (from me at least not necessarily OP) take this as a grain of salt as I am neither a linguist nor someone who has any real experience as part of a chiefdom, Kin Group or Mob.

My contributions are specifically based on what little I have picked up from First Nations friends of mine, and may not be representative of how all First Nations people feel about such terms. It is important to understand that while there may be similarities in social structures, different peoples (especially in Africa which had a vast variety of different cultures, physical and social/political infrastructure, and traditions).

So often people of colour are lumped together as all having lived in the same cookie cutter stereotype of what a white imperialist interpretation of a primitive society. This blatantly ignore the vast and incredibly unique and beautiful complexity of different cultures all over the world that are so much more interesting, in favour of not having to think about them at all or god forbid entertain the idea that there may be alternate ways of living than the one we are used to.

my first reading in my African history class this year is about why using “tribe” to refer to ethnic groups stems from a racist desire to make African conflicts sound primitive or stemming from a desire to pretend that these are just ancient conflicts that have always existed. great article and I also feel like I’m vicariously experiencing the bullshittery that this author has been subjected to from people they’ve tried to talk to about this. like the article remains extremely professional but you can just hear in the tone that they’re talking through gritted teeth, you can practically see the customer service smile

[ID: a screenshot from a section of the article titled “But why not use ‘tribe’? Answers to common arguments.” Under the bullet point for the argument “Africans talk about themselves in terms of tribes” is written, “Commonly when Africans learn English they are taught that tribe is the term that English-speakers will recognize. But what underlying meaning in their own languages are Africans translating when they say tribe? Take the word isizwe in Zulu. In English, writers often refer to the Zulu tribe, whereas in Zulu the word for the Zulu as a group would be isizwe. Often Zulu-speakers will use the English word tribe because that’s what they think English speakers expect, or what they were taught in school. Yet Zulu linguists say that a better translation of isizwe is nation or people.” /end ID] 

translation: “ ‘Oh ho ho but some Africans themselves say tribe!’ You dipshit. You fucking donkey. When someone has a word that means “nation” or “people” in their own language but then when they learn English YOU TELL THEM IT TRANSLATES TO “TRIBE” then THAT WILL BE THE WORD THEY USE. Maybe if you LISTENED TO THE LINGUISTS OF THAT GROUP you’d have more accurate information. Asshole.”

each point is repeated over and over with like five different examples because you just know there are dipshits out there who will keep arguing.

to the anonymous author of this article for the Africa Policy Information Center I hope you have a good day every day and experience fewer people being assholes about this, your patience is actually legendary

As much as I would love to say something like “kudos are just as good” or “Count your blessings, every kudos is someone who loves and appreciates your work” I feel this more than I could ever preach that.

Srsly, comment on your favourite fics, let the author know that someone sees their hard work and appreciates it.

Let them know their work made you feel something, anything at all.

Don’t be silent, or your favourite authors will be.

As if I wasn’t going to reblog a post demonstrating yet again how fma:b is consistently the best show for its audience.

people who are like “the final fma battle was cheesy shounen” Shut the fuck up they all stood in a circle and cheered as he fucked god up. and then everyone clapped