Avatar

put it in my hand

@grammarpedant / grammarpedant.tumblr.com

Grammar may be fake, but sweating the small stuff is forever. Verso, they/them. Diversity of race and gender, speculative fiction, tabletop rpg podcasts, sociology, anime, neurodivergence, revolution, video games, higher education, webcomics, philosophy, and all things related to writing. Current obsessions include Murderbot and Friends at the Table. Asian-American, college grad, technically a doctor. Check out my "Tags I Use" tab for specifics and request new tags anytime.

Erosion by Tamsin van Essen. Who knew parasitic invasion could be so beautiful?

van Essen on her project:

This work explores erosion and the disruption of form. Focusing on biological erosion, I wanted to convey the idea of a host being attacked and eaten away by a parasitic virus, highlighting the creeping spread of the infection as it corrupts the body. I have produced a series of angular porcelain forms, sandblasted to wear the surface and reveal inner strata. This aggressive process, contrarily, creates a delicate vulnerability in the shape. The translucency of the porcelain and the interruption of the surface make it possible to glimpse through to layers beneath, creating a tension between the seen and the obscured.

okay so I finished Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (1861) by Harriet Jacobs, and here are my takeaways, because it was AMAZING and I can't believe all US students aren't required to read it in school:

  • shows how slavery actually worked in nuanced ways i'd never thought much about
  • example: Jacobs's grandmother would work making goods like crackers and preserves after she was done with her work day (so imagine boiling jars at like 3 a.m.) so that she could sell them in the local market
  • through this her grandmother actually earned enough money, over many years, to buy herself and earn her freedom
  • BUT her "mistress" needed to borrow money from her. :)))) Yeah. Seriously. And never paid her back, and there was obviously no legal recourse for your "owner" stealing your life's savings, so all those years of laboring to buy her freedom were just ****ing wasted. like.
  • But also! Her grandmother met a lot of white women by selling them her homemade goods, and she cultivated so much good will in the community that she was able to essentially peer pressure the family that "owned" her into freeing her when she was elderly (because otherwise her so-called owners' white neighbors would have judged them for being total assholes, which they were)
  • She was free and lived in her own home, but she had to watch her children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren all continue to be enslaved. She tried to buy her family but their "owners" wouldn't allow it.
  • Enslaved people celebrated Christmas. they feasted, and men went around caroling as a way to ask white people in the community for money.
  • But Christmas made enslaved people incredibly anxious because New Years was a common time for them to be sold, so mothers giving their children homemade dolls on Christmas might, in just a few days' time, be separated from their children forever
  • over and over again, families were deliberately ripped apart in just the one community that Harriet Jacobs lived in. so many parents kept from their children. just insane to think of that happening everywhere across the slave states for almost 200 years
  • Harriet Jacobs was kept from marrying a free Black man she loved because her "owner" wouldn't let her
  • Jacobs also shows numerous ways slavery made white people powerless
  • for example: a white politician had some kind of relationship with her outside of marriage, obviously very questionably consensual (she didn't hate him but couldn't have safely said no), and she had 2 children by him--but he wasn't her "master," so her "master" was allowed to legally "own" his children, even though he was an influential and wealthy man and tried for years to buy his children's freedom
  • she also gives examples of white men raping Black women and, when the Black women gave birth to children who resembled their "masters," the wives of those "masters" would be devastated--like, their husbands were (from their POV) cheating on them, committing violent sexual acts in their own house, and the wives couldn't do anything about it (except take out their anger on the enslaved women who were already rape victims)
  • just to emphasize: rape was LEGALLY INCENTIVIZED BY US LAW LESS THAN 200 YEARS AGO. It was a legal decision that made children slaves like their mothers were, meaning that a slaveowner who was a serial rapist would "own" more "property" and be better off financially than a man who would not commit rape.
  • also so many examples of white people promising to free the enslaved but then dying too soon, or marrying a spouse who wouldn't allow it, or going bankrupt and deciding to sell the enslaved person as a last resort instead
  • A lot of white people who seemed to feel that they would make morally better decisions if not for the fact that they were suffering financially and needed the enslaved to give them some kind of net worth; reminds me of people who buy Shein and other slave-made products because they just "can"t" afford fairly traded stuff
  • but also there were white people who helped Harriet Jacobs, including a ship captain whose brother was a slavetrader, but he himself felt slavery was wrong, so he agreed to sail Harriet to a free state; later, her white employer did everything she could to help Harriet when Harriet was being hunted by her "owner"
  • ^so clearly the excuse that "people were just racist back then" doesn't hold any water; there were plenty of folks who found it just as insane and wrongminded as we do now
  • Harriet Jacobs making it to the "free" north and being surprised that she wasn't legally entitled to sit first-class on the train. Again: segregation wasn't this natural thing that seemed normal to people in the 1800s. it was weird and fucked up and it felt weird and fucked up!
  • Also how valued literacy skills were for the enslaved! Just one example: Harriet Jacobs at one point needed to trick the "slaveowner" who was hunting her into thinking she was in New York, and she used an NYC newspaper to research the names of streets and avenues so that she could send him a letter from a fake New York address

I don't wanna give away the book, because even though it's an autobiography, it has a strangely thrilling plot. But these were some of the points that made a big impression on me.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl also inspired the first novel written by a Black American woman, Frances Harper, who penned Iola Leroy. And Iola Leroy, in turn, helped inspire books by writers like Nella Larsen and Zora Neale Hurston. Harriet Jacob is also credited in Colson Whitehead's acknowledgments page for informing the plot of The Underground Railroad. so this book is a pivotal work in the US literary canon and, again, it's weird that we don't all read it as a matter of course.

(also P.S. it's free on project gutenberg and i personally read it [also free] on the app Serial Reader)

update!!!!

So Harriet Jacobs's brother was named John Swanson Jacobs, and in her memoir she's like "btw my brother ran away too." But we don't learn a lot about him.

Well, guess what? John Swanson Jacobs wrote a memoir, too. And it was rediscovered. Recently. It was published in full for the first time since 1850 last year, in 2024.

Harriet and John Jacobs both ran away, but they lived very different lives. Harriet Jacobs took a more "typical" path for a Black abolitionist of her era: She asked a white abolitionist to take the credit for her book, since otherwise it wasn't going to get published/read (it was only proven in the 21st century that Harriet herself wrote it).

But John Swanson Jacobs?

He gave all of America the middle finger, became a sailor, traveled the world (the Caribbean, England, Russia, Ukraine, Thailand, India, all over), then ended up in Australia and got his memoir published in a newspaper in Sydney, where he didn't need white people's "permission" to publish it, didn't have to accept the indignity of having a white editor, and didn't need to pretend that he wasn't really the author of his own book.

He called it The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots, referring to the 600,000 slaveowners living in the US.

Like, whoa.

The historian who discovered his memoir,,and wrote a biography on him, describes him as a man with "apocalyptic intelligence."

It is so cool that this book exists. And it kinda sucks because I just know if it'd come out in 2020 people would have been all over it, but I haven't seen it in any bookstores. I got my library to stock it; maybe you can request it at your library, too.

The new edition is annotated by Jonathan D. S. Schroeder, the historian who found Jacobs's memoir in an 1850 Australian newspaper. He recommends--and I do too--reading Harriet and John Swanson Jacobs's memoirs back-to-back, and the annotations in Six Hundred Thousand Despots highlight parts where the siblings' books corroborate or differ from each other's accounts, something I'm personally enjoying a lot.

So yeah. Our only extant fugitive slave narrative written by a world-traveling sailor who told all of America to fuck off and went to live his life. Very very cool book. 10/10 recommend.

“It’s the common lament of the ace to be infantilized, viewed as static, standing still, trapped in amber. Those close to us will outgrow us and leave us behind. We’ll end up alone because we will never be recognized as adults by society. […] When people look at me, they don’t see someone who has years of work and even managerial experience, who is financially stable and owns a home. They don’t see someone who has a partnership and two failed marriage proposals in their past and has outgrown them rather than been outgrown. They don’t see someone who has gray in their hair… although to be fair to them, it’s not usually visible.”

This article and another one you wrote on loving suits is prompting me to think about my own relationship with my presentation.

“because to be asexual is to be illegible”

I swear, historical clothing is drag for aces. Like there’s playfulness, exaggerated gender presentation, and gender ambiguity but in a way that’s so out of sync with current aesthetic preferences it’s deeply unsexy to onlookers. Especially we do our hair in historical ways. It feels like we make the illegibility of asexuality visible. Like “yes, I’m this unsexy on purpose and now you, the onlooker, have to cope with your bafflement.”

I don’t do much costuming now, but so much of my interest in it was to explore the arbitrariness of attraction before I had the words to describe my orientation.

This is a really interesting point! I’m also drawn to historical fashions, usually out of a desire to be The Most Extra, to create an æsthetic rather than sensual-based presentation, and to connect that with the purposeful exaggeration and playfulness of drag is good food for thought.

Next up for International Compost Awareness Week: If you can’t put manure in your compost pile, what do you do with it???

These handy articles below explain a bit about why you should use it, and how you can safely compost it!

Manure is a low-cost fertilizer and a wonderful way to utilize nutrients instead of creating a pile that is not getting used and could be harmful to water quality,”

“…chicken’ digestive system kills weed seeds — 98%! — that might otherwise be spread to the garden.“ Which makes them great for disposing of all those pesky weeds you pulled!

Simply aging a manure pile for three months can kill about 60 percent of the weed seeds present, and bacterial counts start to drop within days after the manure leaves the animal. Then, when the aged manure is mixed into the soil, soil microorganisms clear out residual bacteria in about a month.”

I(mod S) have chickens and guinea fowl, all of whom create so. much. manure. There are a couple different ways I handle their waste, both of which require as little effort as I can possibly manage.  The first is my designated bird waste spot, which is a repurposed feed trough that was probably originally intended for cattle, so it’s rather large. When the coops get cleaned out, the waste goes in the trough.  It sits for a while, a few months at least, until it looks more like soil than manure. Then I usually plant it with flowers, gourds, maybe decorative pumpkins - in other words, things not for eating. After those plants have lived out their lives and died back, I dig out the now fantastic soil and distribute it around various beds, wherever it’s needed.

The other method I use is when I’m making a raised bed.  I avoid buying soil as much as I possibly can, so I tend to get kinda creative when I need to fill in a bed. I put a few rotting logs in the bottom, followed by a thick layer of manure, and then a thick layer of soil. Then after a week when it settles a bunch and is no longer as high as I want it, I add more soil. This creates really nice soil that won’t need amending for a few years, at least, and since there is several inches at least of soil on top, I can plant directly in it, rather than having to wait for it to decompose. 

Also, as a bonus for chicken keepers, you can feed them the dairy and meat that all the guides say not to put in the compost pile!

Don’t have your own animals creating manure, but have space to compost it? Many horse farms, at least around where I live, have more than they can deal with, and some actually pay to have it carted away. You may be able to score a load for free!

If getting manure from someone else, keep in mind that there may be herbicides, pesticides, or other chemicals in it. It is exceedingly rare for horses to be kept organic, and it isn’t particularly common for chickens, either. Additionally, while chickens’ digestion kills weed seeds, other animals do not! Fascinatingly, some farmers have intentionally fed seeds such as clover to their animals with the intention of spreading them about the pasture via manure with decent success!

Happy composting!

- Mod S

Chickens, I believe, are unique in that their digestive system destroys seeds on the way through.

Basically, to my understanding, the seeds are ground up in the gizzard, destroying many of them.  I believe that further along the digestive tract there are other things that also reduce the viability of seeds. This doesn’t happen to every type of seed, it isn’t 100% effective, but it’s incredibly helpful in the garden! I personally feed my chickens nearly all of the weeds I pull.  Even if they don’t eat them (they don’t seem to like mint) I know that with their scratching and running around, nothing is going to grow in their coop, effectively ending those particular plants reproduction. 

- Mod S

Dyslexia Friendly Ao3 Skin (or at least an attempt at)

I've been slowly working at a dyslexia friendly skin following the design suggestions I've found in the British Dyslexia Association Style Guide.

It is still a work in progress and I'm begging for feedback so that I can make it better for everyone.

To Do List:

  • A dark mode is on the way. I'll post it on the link I've just posted, so if you find this post in a few months you'll be able to find it.
  • As soon as I can I aim to make the code more ordered, with lots of comments and a guide to change stuff for people who know nothing about css, so you can personalize it for your needs.
  • More color combinations.
  • Implement more stuff you ask me. I'm designing this by just following a guide, but it might be wrong in some areas and there might be more stuff that's good to add.

I’ve updated the link to have a guide on how to customize the skin even for people who know nothing about css!

Next thing I’m working on is going to be the dark mode (which I know people are waiting for. I’ll publish it on the same ao3 work in that link as a new chapter, so if you want to be reminded just follow that work)

AND DARK MODE IS HERE

The link is still the same: https://archiveofourown.org/works/30918077/chapters/76349072 in chapter 2 you’ll find the customization guide for people who know nothing about css and in chapter 3 the dark mode skin!

I’ve made a few changes and adjustments. (these skins are always a work in progress) Most prominently the tags on mobile now look better when they are too long:

while before they showed like this:

everything is still in the link in the ao3 work. I’ve just changed the code and updated it.

Okay seriously... 🥺😭 this is amazing. Its hard to discribe what reading with severe dyslexia is like. But in a word, it sucks.

The appreciation I have for this skin is just...I can't. I wish I had found this sooner! No two people with dyslexia are exactly the same but if you have it, trying this skin is so worth while.

Avatar
Reblogged

There Are No Superheroes in Captain America Civil War

Superhero comics have a longstanding marketing gimmick where hero A will cameo in an issue of hero B’s comic, to encourage hero B fans to start reading hero A’s comic and vice versa. Marvel Studios has managed to recreate that marketing gimmick in movie form, which is kind of an impressive trick, but along with it they’ve recreated the inaccessibility of superhero comic canon. I have seen the two previous Captain America movies, but Civil War is not just Captain America 3, it’s Marvel Cinematic Universe Epsiode 13, and it’s clearly made for people who have seen all twelve previous movies. I have only seen about half of them so I had a lot of questions for my wife, like “Who’s that guy?” and “why can Red Data walk through walls?” and “Why does everyone call Jean Grey ‘Wanda’?”

In short, I am not this movie’s target audience. I’m the guy who’s wondering when the superhero movie bubble is going to pop, already. I wouldn’t have gone at all except that my wife is a big Steve/Bucky fan, so this movie was a big deal for her, so I wanted to go with her to support her fandom.

Well, she might be regretting inviting me now, because i’ve done nothing but rant about this movie since it ended.

So here’s the thing. Marvel Civil War is quite possibly a brilliant deconstruction of the entire concept of superheroes, a devastating criticism of the ethics of its main characters. A movie that so thoroughly demolishes the foundations of its own series that we can never see any of these characters as “heroes” again.

… but I don’t think it was on purpose. (A company whose business model depends on churning these movies out probably doesn’t want to destroy the foundations of the genre.)

So look, the movie starts out by forcing us to look at the massive collateral damage inflicted by Avengers fights. Shows us the innocent people who were killed because the avengers dropped a building on them, the international diplomatic incidents.  It says: This is the human cost of superheroes fighting, basically, wars in populated areas. The Secretary of State shows up and compares Thor and the Hulk to loose nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state. And he’s right. There’s no oversight, there’s no checks and balances, there’s no accountability to democratically elected governments – the Avengers are worse than just “vigilantes”, they’re a self-appointed private army who intervene in sovereign nations without regard to international law.

This is an extremely valid critique. It’s a version of the classic “who watches the watchmen” question that every serious superhero story eventually has to grapple with. Can you justify vigilantism, given that in the real world vigilantes are more like George Zimmerman than like spider-man?

So the beginning of the movie sets you up to wonder what the answer will be. Will the avengers submit to following laws and minimizing casualties and cleaning up their messes? Or will they find a compelling justification to keep doing what they’ve been doing?

Or neither?

(Spoilers ahead)

This post confuses me because you’re listing all the reasons this movie was great but you don’t seem to have enjoyed it

The second issue of the Practical Handbook was all about queer readings so I made this non-fiction comic about reading Holmes as trans! It’s actually more of an introduction to the subject, ideally I’d like to turn it into a proper article some day, but it felt good to reflect on it and be able to have this in a publication as a valid reading. Researching critical material was emotionally draining since the very few published essays on the topic are incredibly transphobic and basically worthless, but that made me want to have my say even more. Many thanks to my good friends Mo and Elinor for helping me with the wording so as to make it accessible but to the point, and as always Katie for supporting my little transgender bum.

Avatar
friendlytroll

Something Ive always noted is that despite his noted distain FOR femminine ‘qualities’ or interests, Holmes has a marked passion towards cases where the victim is female. He becomes somewhat emotional, for Holmes; he will make remarks such as “If it was MY sister….” about a vulnurable woman in an unusual circumstance, and he will display coolheaded but *distinct* scorn for men trying to do badly by the women in their lives. 

Obviously one can take this as a kind of ‘the hero is kind to the cat’ which is in line of holmes (relative) charity to the under-served (gypsies, street urchins, the poor and bewildered). BUT it also snaps neatly into place in the context of Holmes as a trans individual. 

He is sympathetic because he is *empathetic*- the general powerlessness of women, and ill chances of being taken seriously or helped, would be something he has experienced. The triumph of The Woman to live her own life, by her own intelligence, and refuse masculine control is genuine admiration. Perhaps by someone who has been in a similar position. 

There is also the question of his peculiar gaps in knowledge: Sciences and social realms unimportant to his work. Astronomy is a noted gap; as in Sports. If we assume he was raised as a female, his acsess to education may have been limited at best; and his pursual of as much knowledge as possible would be limited to what he is *interested in*, and no real socialization to pay attention to sport. 

WOW OKAY I GUESS I FORGOT HOW MUCH I THINK ABOUT THIS I MEANT TO WRITE A SHORT COMMENT HERE WE ARE I GUESS

People say that you should really do something out of your comfort zone. Why? I worked very hard to find my comfort zone. It was really rough and I can’t even get there that often. Takes all day and I gotta get off to a good start and do all the right things and avoid the right people and find all the right people and do all of these things to find my comfort zone. And then I’m supposed to do something outside of my - Fuck you! You do something outside your comfort zone. My comfort zone is hard-won…. But then, that’s where popular culture and pop psych comes in and wants – and the shtick I was looking at last night was that like, so, if it’s ‘afraid’, then, ‘You should do the things you’re afraid of’. Why? Why? I have felt quite enough fear. I don’t think I will benefit from more fear. I don’t think it’s the missing element in my life. I don’t think that’s the thing I need to be seeking out. ‘Go to the places that scare you.’ No! I have carved out an awesome space in which I don’t have to visit the places that scare me. I don’t like them there. I’ve been there. I know more about them than you, person telling me to go to the places that scare me.

John Darnielle, 2014-04-19 and 2014-04-20 at the Old Town School of Folk Music, Chicago ( track 18 in https://archive.org/details/tmg2014-04-19.oldtown.flac16 and track 21 in https://archive.org/details/tmg2014-04-20)

The “Putin bans memes” thing was really funny to me until I learned the actual reason behind the ruling was that a misogynistic meme of a Russian musician was being used to attack women online and he didn’t want to be associated with it and theres a lot more going on to the law

“ The re-statement of the law came after a recent legal case. Lurkmore - an amateur website that publishes information about memes - posted a photo of a popular Russian singer, Valeriy Syutkin, which was deemed illegal. The photo was superimposed with an obscene phrase - “Smack the Bitch in the Face” - which a court declared violated the privacy of the singer. Syutkin is known for his romantic songs, but ended up becoming the face of the obscene meme which borrows a song lyric from another artist. The picture was used in Russian social media circles as an insult to settle arguments with women by glorifying violence against them - not something Syutkin wanted to be associated with. “ -source

Its an extension of anti-defamation laws that allow celebrities to sue if their image is in an inappropriate way

So no, its not because Putin is tired of “Putin is gay” memes, or that memes are being banned. It just allows celebrities to sue if they feel like their reputation is being damaged by a meme. Right now the only meme thats “banned” is the Syutkin one. 

That raises a bigger problem than just memes being banned as it extends Russia’s ability to censor the internet and block websites. The law should be looked at and criticized from a wider viewpoint than just “Putin is gay” memes potentially being banned.  

Avatar
truthtellingtime

Just so everybody knows, the mirror is actually more reliable than the camera. Even though people say “the camera never lies”, it distorts your photographs a little bit. It has to turn a 3d image (you in real life) to a 2d image (a photograph) and consequently skews the proportions a little bit.

Also, “photogenic” is a real thing. Certain faces photograph well and others don’t. It’s all down the angles, proportions and size of your features.

Have you ever seen someone stunning who looks great in professional photographs and not in candids? Yeah, that’s because there’s a huge difference between a professional and an amateur. Professionals know how to minimise the issues cameras have. Lighting, angles and even the distance you are away from the camera plays a part (the amount of distortion varies depending on how close you are).

TL;DR if you think you look great in the mirror but not in the photo, trust the mirror. You look great!

Avatar
milafawnkawaiielfgoddessangelic

NOT ONLY THAT, but when you look in a mirror, you’re seeing your face in motion, how others would see it. In a photograph, you’re still, and it can make small flaws and the like seem a lot more prominent, despite them being quite minuscule in person.

Also! Also, when you see yourself in the mirror you are looking at you face reverse of how a camera pics it up. No face is perfectly symmetrical so you get so used to seeing a mirrored version of your face that when it’s flipped in a picture you subconsciously notice the tiny differences in your face and thus you think you don’t look right.

Avatar
barackthehalls

I have never felt so relieved and beautiful thank you guys

Sponsored

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.