Beautifully-observed & realistic figure of a sleeping Antelope incised on rock up to 10,000 years ago at Tin Taghirt, Tassili n'Ajjer in Algeria, one of the largest & most important groupings of prehistoric cave art in the world.
One of the most effective things that I've found for writing when you're stuck where you are is to write whatever scene you have in your head. Write the end. Write that one random scene that may not end up in the book at all. Write the fluff, the angst, the half-formed thought.
The advantage of doing this is that it will get you back in the story itself and get your head with the characters and the world, while also reminding you that you can write that story.
Sometimes you can end up in a rut that feels insurmountable because you can't get the next 100 words. Getting your head out of those next 100 words and into the story as a whole can really help.
person vs person
- between two people
- a hero and a villain
- the mc's goal is obstructed by another person
- Victor Hugo's les misérables
person vs technology
- a person faces technology
- between a person / group of people and an object of science
- technology refers to science over magic
- Mary Shelley's frankenstein
person vs nature
- a person faces nature
- the effects of nature on the human world
- the mc's goal (long- or short-term) is obstructed by an element of nature / a natural force
- John Green's a fault in our stars
person vs society
- a person faces a collective group of people
- a smaller group of people vs a large group of people
- their goal is obstructed by this group of people
- Suzanne Collins' the hunger games
person vs supernatural
- a person faces a supernatural subject
- this tends towards the magic, although similar to person vs. technology in a sense
- fate, magic forces, otherworldly beings, religion, deities
- Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson
person vs self
- conflict between a person and their inner self
- may be conflicted with their own feelings
- can have two opposing goals
- Fyodor Dostoevsky's crime and punishment
Ghosts of Transparency: Shadows Cast and Shadows Cast Out
Michael R Doyle, Selena Savic, Vera Bühlmann
Information and data are not synonyms: data (etymologically, the ‘given’) has to be treated, articulated, read or deciphered in such a way as to contain information. The sheer amount of data today tends to obscure this important difference between data and information: data is entropic, while information is where this entropy is negated; information is negentropic. An emerging political imperative of ‘transparency’ conflates the abundance of data with an increase in information. Unfortunately, the reverse is often the case: The more ‘data’ is rendered available and passed off as ‘information’ or ‘knowledge’, the more opaque the dealings with ‘information’ become. This is perhaps one of the greatest challenges we face with regard to be- coming literate in the algorithmic and symbolization processes that organize data in our world today—processes we refer to here as ‘ghosts of transparency’. This book is above all about architectonics and communication. What, you may ask, does this have to do with ar- chitecture and urbanism? Data and software are thought to reshape the city, while the word ‘architecture’ refers equally often to buildings and to the organization of computer software and hardware components. With this book, we want to cast a projective space that accommodates various Auseinandersetzungen (settings, or setting ups, articulated dispositions of grounds that are quarrelsome) with implicit and explicit mixtures of these two domains interpenetrating each other. Contributions are short enough to make a point, yet long enough to glimpse the great variety of ‘scales’ of abstractive contemplation that these points index.
Information Technology, Philosophy, Architecture, Architectural Theory
The 4 Basic Types of Relationship Arcs (with Examples & Variations)
Much has been written about character arcs, but little has been taught about relationship arcs--despite relationship plotlines playing key roles in most stories, in most genres. Writing instructors such as Blake Snyder and Robert McKee, and approaches such as Dramatica Theory, all touch on the importance of having a central relationship in a story.
But there aren't very many resources on how to actually write or arc the relationship itself--unless of course, you are writing in the romance genre (and if you are, definitely take advantage of those resources--a great one is Romancing the Beat by Gwen Hayes).
The central relationship in a story (which often involves the protagonist and the Influence Character) isn't always a romantic one though. It can be a relationship between allies, friends, coworkers, siblings, a mentor and student, or even rivals or enemies.
So while the romance resources can help you write a lot of stories, they won't work for all central relationship types, as you'll see by the end of this article.
Because, while it's most common for the central relationship characters to become close, it's not the only option. And some characters are already close when the story begins. How do we write about them? By undoing their past and re-doing it, like so many writers have done poorly in sequels?
Plus, your protagonist (and any other key characters) will likely have important relationships with others outside the central relationship (even if they aren't a major plotline)--few relationships stay stagnant, so how do we arc those? They can't all follow the same format!
These are concerns that have been on my mind over the years, particularly because multiple writing approaches emphasize the need for a relationship plotline for the B Story (secondary plotline), but then those same approaches tend to be awfully vague on how to actually do that.
Well, several weeks ago while I was doing my hair and thinking about the basic character arcs, something clicked with me on a level it hadn't before. And a bunch of these questions I've had about relationships started getting answers! Suddenly things that had felt vague and elusive (and, I admit to some degree, unimportant) started making complete sense.
The info is more than I can fit in a single article. But the best place to start, is with the four basic types of relationship arcs.
Which is great, because arcs build off concepts you probably already know . . .
What is a Relationship Arc?
A character arc is how a character grows or changes through the story. And a relationship arc is how a relationship grows or changes through the story.
Those familiar with my approach to character arcs, know I like to start with the most basic categories. We can build and get more complicated and specific off those categories, but ultimately when it comes to character arc, there are only four types: change positively, change negatively, remain steadfast positively, remain steadfast negatively.
Well, guess what?
This is the same breakdown we can use for relationship arcs!
Now, this can be a little tricky and confusing at first, because we need to look at the relationship itself, and not the individuals in the relationship. The individuals in the relationship will likely have their own arcs (which play into how they interact in their relationship). But for a relationship arc, we are looking at the relationship itself.
Just as with my breakdown of character arcs, any relationship should, theoretically, be able to fit into these types at the most basic level. So let's go through them!
4 Kinds of Relationship Arcs
So there are only two directions a relationship can grow.
1. Closer, through love and respect (Positive)
2. Apart, through dislike and disrespect (Negative)
And there are only two ways this can happen.
1. The relationship changes
2. The relationship remains steadfast (strengthening in resolve)
That's it! While we can get more complicated and specific from there, at the most basic level, any relationship should, theoretically, fit into this breakdown.
Positive Relationship Arcs
In a positive arc, the participants in the relationship will grow closer together, typically because they grow in love and respect for each other. This can either be a positive change relationship or a positive steadfast relationship.
Positive Change Relationship Arcs
Out of the relationship arcs, this is the most common, so it will likely sound and look very familiar to you.
In this arc, the relationship will largely change because of the story, in a positive way.
Often the relationship will do a 180 flip (more or less) from the beginning of the story to the end of the story. The characters will go from being largely strangers, or even downright enemies, to becoming best friends, found family, or significant others.
The obstacles of the journey ultimately draw them closer in love and respect.
Examples of Positive Change Relationship Arcs
Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice start out as strangers, and it isn't long before Elizabeth (and others) deem Darcy as too proud for his own good--he refuses to dance with Elizabeth at the ball. Yet over the coming months, Mr. Darcy begins to fall for Elizabeth, and, to her surprise, proposes to her. She turns him down, citing his arrogance. But her feelings toward him start to take a turn--perhaps she had misjudged him. At the end of the book, Elizabeth accepts his (second) proposal.
In The X-Files, Mulder and Scully start as strangers, though Scully is familiar with Mulder's negative reputation. The division chief assigns Scully to the X-Files to debunk Mulder's work, and they become partners. Over the years of cases, they grow closer and closer, as the obstacles of the show require more and more personal costs and sacrifices. From partners, they become friends, to close friends, to essentially found family, to lovers.
In Monsters Inc. Sulley is first terrified of Boo, and her escape into Monstropolis leads to chaos. Forced to hide her in his apartment, Sulley realizes she's not a danger, and begins to grow attached to her before discovering she's the one in danger. As they navigate antagonistic forces, they soon develop a parent-child relationship.
Other examples include Joy and Sadness in Inside Out, Sherlock and John in Sherlock, and all the guardians in Guardians of the Galaxy
Often these characters are pushed together because of other forces or circumstances. Maybe they are in the same social circle or must work together toward a goal. This may not always be the case, but if the arc is for a plotline, typically it is. It is possible they want to draw closer together out of their own free will, like in Romeo and Juliet, but they might be facing obstacles.
Positive Steadfast Relationship Arcs
In a positive steadfast relationship arc, the participants are already close.
Instead of doing a big flip or experiencing a big change, the relationship will be, more or less, the same at the beginning of the story and at the end of the story. Instead of transforming, it will grow in resolve.
Some relationships will remain essentially the exact same through the story--in which case, it may arguably be a relationship arc, but it's not really a relationship plotline. If you want to make this into a relationship plotline, it likely needs to grow by degree.
This means the characters will grow even closer together by the end of the story--or more accurately said, because of the story.
A positive steadfast relationship doesn't necessarily mean the relationship never wavers or never gets rocky. Only that when all is said and done, the characters will remain loyal to each other at the end.
Just as with steadfast characters, these are often relationships people struggle to know how to write well. A common lament I hear is, "What do I do when the characters are already together?" "Or already in love?"--particularly for sequels. . . . And a common mistake writers make is to try to undo what already happened--through weak antagonistic forces--and then redo it.
In reality, the positive steadfast relationship arc (like the steadfast character arc) is about testing the relationship. What can the writer (believably) throw at the characters that will threaten to wedge them apart?
The greater the threat, the more meaningful it is when the characters choose to remain together.
Examples of Positive Steadfast Relationship Arcs
Perhaps one of the best examples of this relationship arc comes from The Lord of the Rings (and I like the film adaptations in particular). Frodo and Sam already start with a positive relationship. But the journey of the story threatens to separate them. First Frodo believes he needs to bear this burden alone. Then Smeagal and the Ring begin to chip them apart. Eventually, they go their own ways. But Frodo realizes he needs Sam, who re-realizes the exact same. They are only able to make it to the Crack of Doom by Sam carrying Frodo over his shoulders.
In a couple of renditions of Spider-man, Peter and Mary Jane fit this arc as well. They start already friendly, close, and on good terms. But their relationship gets tested past its breaking point before they come back together.
Another (atypical) example comes from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, where the central relationship involves Harry (and the trio) and Albus Dumbledore--despite Dumbledore not being present (you can actually have a relationship arc with one of the participants absent). Harry starts the story loyal to Dumbledore, but the information coming out about him begins to chip at that loyalty. Maybe Dumbledore wasn't who Harry thought he was. In the end, this loyalty is re-cemented into place and made even stronger.
Ultimately, the relationships withstand the trials, and the participants are brought closer because of it.
Alternatively, you could, theoretically, use the arc to help others have a change arc, in the same way that the steadfast protagonist often helps others or the world around them change. But we don't see that very often.
Negative Relationship Arcs
When we think of relationship arcs and plotlines, we generally think of drawing characters closer together. But it is also possible to arc relationships by pulling characters apart. Instead of growing in love and respect, they ultimately grow in dislike, disrespect, and distance.
This will happen in one of two ways.
Negative Change Relationship Arcs
In this arc, the relationship will largely change because of the story, in a negative way.
Often the relationship will do a 180 flip (more or less) from the beginning of the story to the end of the story. The characters will go from being best friends, found family, or significant others, to largely strangers, or even downright enemies.
This is about the deterioration of a relationship.
Instead of overcoming the challenges thrown at their relationship and drawing closer, these obstacles (or in some cases, distractions) tear the participants apart. They may increase in dislike, hate, or disrespect for one another, or simply become more distant.
Examples of Negative Change Relationship Arcs
In Revenge of the Sith, Anakin and Obi-wan begin the story as close as brothers, with Anakin going against orders to save Obi-wan twice. He would rather risk his death, the death of others, and his mission than leave his master behind. But the tension between the Jedi and Palpatine, and the seduction of the dark side being able to save Padme, starts to strain the relationship. Halfway through the film, Anakin accepts that Obi-wan may need to die, and by the climax, he's more than ready to kill his master himself, openly professing how much he hates him.
From the beginning of Stranger Things to the most recent 4th season, the audience has . . . more or less . . . watched a deterioration of Mike and Will's friendship. They started as the oldest and most trusted friends out of the group of boys, and Mike does all he can to rescue Will. But by season four, Mike doesn't even really "see" Will, even when Will is right in front of him. The relationship is more one-sided, and arguably more distant than ever, as Will is unable to truly get closer to Mike, and Mike is blind to Will's real feelings for him.
In The Hunger Games, Gale starts the story as Katniss's closest and most dependable friend. They begin hitting some rocks in Catching Fire and then it gets worse in Mockingjay, as Gale grows interested in using more violent war tactics. While they certainly have their ups, when Gale becomes willing to sacrifice others to ensure victory--which likely led to Prim's death--the relationship crashes to a hurtful end.
Negative Steadfast Relationship Arcs
In a negative steadfast relationship arc, the characters start apart and end apart. They may be strangers or enemies and ultimately end up that way.
This doesn't mean the characters never get close or never love each other for a time--they may flirt with the idea of always being together, but when all is said and done, the characters won't stand by each other.
Some relationships will stay essentially the exact same through the whole story--in which case, it may arguably be a relationship arc, but it's not really a relationship plotline.
The story may test their resolve to be strangers or enemies by offering opportunities that could draw them together. But by the denouement, they usually end up with a bigger divide. You can hate a stranger or an enemy, yes, but you usually can't hate a stranger or an enemy as much as you hate an ex. Or alternatively, you can feel distant from a complete stranger, but you will feel even more distant when parting with someone you were once close with. It's in this sense that the negative steadfast relationship grows by degree.
Examples of Negative Steadfast Relationship Arcs
In 1984 by George Orwell, Winston and Julia start as strangers. Suspecting Julia is a spy, Winston hates her, until she slips him a love note, and the two start a secret affair (in a society where individual relationships and sexual desires are forbidden). They draw closer together, to the point of Julia saying she'd do anything to tear down the Party, except she doesn't want to betray Winston. In the end, they are tortured and brainwashed to the point that they each betray each other. Despite running into each other in the denouement, they no longer share their previous affections or desires, and go their separate ways.
In Cruella, Estella has the opportunity to work for the Baroness von Hellman, but when she sees the Baroness wearing her mother's old necklace, makes plans to steal it back by creating the alter ego "Cruella" as a distraction. A feud between the Baroness and Cruella ensues, and eventually, Estella learns the truth that the Baroness is her biological mother, who tried to have her killed shortly after her birth. What should have been a loving relationship becomes a fierce rivalry of power, where one actually attempts to kill the other. In the end, the Baroness is arrested, and the relationship destroyed.
The Prestige starts with the Angier and Borden working together for a magician, but the two men aren't close. When Angier's wife dies in a water tank trick accident, he blames Borden for tying the wrong knot. The two become rivals in magic and revengeful enemies. Despite Angier being advised to move on, he becomes more obsessed with taking down Borden. Eventually, Angier frames him for murder, and Borden is sentenced to death. In a twist, however, "Borden" is able to ultimately kill Angier. Lives are lost as the relationship comes to an end.
Another example would be Mia and Seb in La La Land.
Relationship Arc Variations
Just as with character arcs, there may be variations in relationship arcs. In writing, things often aren't either-or nor black or white. We use simple categories to help us better discern and learn how to write arcs. These categories are intended to explain what exists, not police what is allowed to exist.
Love at a Distance
The characters may grow in their love for each other, but also grow distant from each other. While this is unusual, it's not impossible. For example, one character may observe the other and love him more, while she simultaneously draws further away.
At one point in The X-Files (in the "revival" seasons), we learn that Scully grew distant from Mulder because she loves him so much. She couldn't bear to watch what was happening to him.
Another common trope is that one character pulls away because he feels incapable or unworthy of the other person, and resolves to love that person from afar--in thought or even action.
Love Your Enemy
Sometimes the characters love each other or learn to love each other while ultimately being enemies.
Often the protagonist will begin to see herself in the antagonist. While this can lead to more hatred (which is actually hatred directed at the self), it can also lead to love, because one character begins to more intimately understand the other.
In Ender's Game, Ender is able to defeat his enemies because he understands them on a personal level.
Keep Your Enemies Closer
As the saying goes, "Keep your friends close, and keep your enemies closer."
This is similar to the last variation, but a little different.
One character may be drawing closer to the enemy and getting more personal with them, but may not really love them.
In fact, it's possible they hate them more.
In Death Note, the central relationship involves the protagonist, Light, and the antagonist, L. The characters draw closer together while investigating ongoing murders--that Light is secretly committing. L is the biggest threat to Light. And Light is the biggest threat to L. Ultimately, one kills the other.
The Frienemy
"Frenemy" comes from the words "friend" and "enemy." This is a relationship that is a mash-up of the two. It may be a friend that also serves as an antagonist--such as a rival.
This may not be so much an arc itself, but can be an option to use in an arc that will bring in some variation to what I said above.
For some interesting takes on "frienemy," look no further than the Wikipedia entry on it.
Toxically Close (No Boundaries)
Typically the most toxic relationships come from the closest relationships. Loving your abuser or being codependent is ripe with dysfunction. Boundaries are a healthy part of a relationship and help individualize the participants.
The Collective
Sometimes the character is in a relationship with a group of people that, more or less, acts as a unit. It might be there is a relationship arc between the protagonist and his football team, or the protagonist and his staff. How individualized the people of the group are may vary, but when it comes to a relationship plotline, the protagonist is in a relationship with a collective.
You can find an example of a negative relationship with a collective in Mean Girls, which largely centers on Cady's relationship with The Plastics.
I'm sure there are a lot of interesting variations to what I outlined as the basic arcs, so use the outlined arcs as tools to help you, and not standards you have to meet to a t.
Tip: Consider Specific Labels to Map the Arc
It's useful to look at generalities and the basics, but it can also be helpful to get more specific.
One of the influences of this post, came from me running into people online who would identify tropes like this:
Enemies to lovers
Friends to lovers
Lovers to exes
. . . and I realized they were essentially describing relationship arcs.
It might be helpful to look at the relationship arc in your story, and map it out in a similar way:
Strangers --> best friends
Enemies --> allies
Allies --> rivals
Brothers --> enemies
Friend --> frienemy
Classmates --> found family
It may be more accurate to add more stages:
Strangers --> allies --> best friends
Enemies --> friends --> enemies
Strangers --> colleagues --> best friends --> lovers
Lovers --> exes --> lovers
Family --> strangers --> enemies
Not all the terms you may come up with will fit this idea perfectly. For example, earlier I used the term "brothers" . . . well, even if you are "enemies" you are still technically "brothers" in the biological sense. Use the terms that suit you best. No need to get too rigid. And again, not everything is always black and white. The point is that it helps map out the journey, which can bring more clarity. (It also helps to ensure that the relationship plotline is a plotline and not just filler--more on that in the future.)
Here are some more examples . . .
Sherlock Holmes & John Watson in Sherlock:
Strangers --> roommates --> best friends
Fox Mulder & Dana Scully in The X-Files:
Strangers --> partners --> best friends --> lovers
Nancy & Steve in Stranger Things:
Love interests --> couple --> exes --> friends ( . . . with maybe some feelings still)
Luke & Darth Vader in Star Wars:
Enemies --> family
If you want more ideas and insight into specific relationships, check out Writers Helping Writers' relationship thesaurus.
Why are Relationship Arcs Important?
We've covered a lot of ground with relationship arcs. Well, so what? Why does this matter? Why are we told they are usually key in a strong story? Even when the primary plotline isn't about a relationship?
Well, there are a few reasons. . . .
How Relationships are Often Thematic
Several well-known sources (such as those I mentioned in the beginning) point to the relationship plotline (which includes a relationship arc) as being a crucial element of theme. In fact, some say it is where theme really happens. I definitely wouldn't take it that far. I agree it is a key element, but I think it's a bit of an error to say that the relationship plotline is where theme really happens. I've talked about this before, though, and won't repeat my whole commentary on that. I'll summarize by saying often the thematic arguments are more obvious in the central relationship plotline.
This is because the way each character arcs individually is part of what makes up theme. Usually, the relationship plotline will be between the protagonist and Influence Character. And the Influence Character helps guide the protagonist to adopt a worldview, which essentially encapsulates the theme. However, sometimes this is reversed, and the protagonist helps the Influence Character adopt the theme. (Just as a note, while less common, it's also possible one or both adopt the anti-theme, as you'll see in a second.)
More often than not, these characters will have the same goal or at least be on similar journeys, but they have different methodologies, which lead to arguments. These arguments are normally thematic--the reason the characters have different methodologies is because their worldviews differ. How they want to move forward often demonstrates the story's thematic arguments.
For more information on this, check out, "Writing the Influence Character."
For the relationship as a whole itself, it might be helpful to consider how the characters grow together or apart, and what they learn. For example, in Mockingjay, Gale grows more interested in sacrificing others in order to claim victory--which is actually the anti-theme of the whole series. The true theme is that we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves to save others, which is what Katniss has done time and time again--starting with saving Prim. It's the idea that Gale essentially sacrificed Prim in order to secure the Capitol that ultimately drove him and Katniss apart.
When you think about how Gale ultimately chose the anti-theme (though understandably), it's really not that surprising that Katniss ended up with Peeta instead of him.
With all this said, there is no need to overthink or get hung up on the relationship arc and the theme, especially for every relationship. If each person in the relationship is tapping into the theme individually, you're probably good. After all, Katniss and Gale are each on different sides of the thematic argument as individuals. But it can be helpful to see that this is why they grew apart.
Relationship Plotlines Add Dimension
Most stories will feature a big external journey and a big internal journey for the protagonist.
A relationship plotline helps add dimension to a story by offering a third type of plotline that fits between those two. It's not as extreme and far-reaching as the external plotline, but it's not as intimate and deep as the internal plotline. Rather than adding more and more external plotlines or more and more internal plotlines, it's usually more effective to add a relationship plotline. I'll share more about relationship plotlines in a later article.
Again, these are basics, and I know they aren't perfect, or yet perfectly refined, but they should help you understand relationship arcs better than before and direct you on the right track.
They will also help you see other options so you don't keep picking the same enemies --> best friends (positive change) relationship journey in your stories. I find I tend to pick the same type of relationship arc for the secondary plotline, not only because I love it, but because I didn't understand there were other options I could utilize.
So there you have it, the four basic types of relationship arcs (with examples & variations) 😉. I'm feeling more eager to look deeper at the central relationships in my WIPs. Hopefully you are too!
And next time, we'll delve into them a bit more. Until then, happy writing.
Starlings making the shape of a bird (source: Colin Hogg)
“After months of chasing these birds around Lough Ennell, Co. Westmeath. James Crombie and I captured a unique display. His shot made front cover of the Irish Times and this is the video of the murmuration behind that iconic photograph.”
it sounds ridiculously obvious now, but one of the best pieces of writing advice i've ever received is that most of the time, a character's flaws are also their strengths. a smart person might have trouble admitting they're wrong, or break down when they don't know how to solve something; a practical, capable person might lack emotional intelligence. a determined person might be so focused on their goals that they neglect their friends and ignore anything "superfluous" (i.e. they don't notice minor details that turn out to be important later on). kindness can become naivety; open-mindedness can become centrism; confidence can become arrogance. sometimes it's tempting to just reach into a grab bag of positive and negative traits and sprinkle them in at random, but it's much better to instead isolate the things you like about your character and take those traits to the logical extreme.
“From the point (seed), the line (as shoots from the seed) grows both upward and downward. From the light-seeking upper stem arise the planar leaves, and finally beyond these the flowering form delineates a ‘solid’ or three-dimensional field of action. The three-dimensional aspect will take a profile that demonstrates the movement from bud through to whole flowers. Once this process has reached a certain recognizable stage, we look at the ‘face’ of the flower in a two-dimensional manner to see how the number shapes and patterns of the petals are displayed.”
— Keith Critchlow, The Hidden Geometry of Flowers: Living Rhythms, Form and Number
i’ve mentioned this here before, but it will remain one of the most ideologically influential experiences of my life: when i was in fifth grade i did a report on post traumatic stress as manifested in veterans of the vietnam war, and my father did me the huge favor of connecting me w/ a vietnam vet friend of his who was diagnosed with PTSD, assuring him that while i was only ten i was bright and curious and he should be as honest with me about his experience as possible.
i remember entering his office with my tape recorder, sitting in a chair that was too big, and asking him questions about war, and his life after war, while swinging my legs over the edge of the chair. i remember being very, very quiet as he spoke of pulling the car over on the highway for fear of crashing when his hands would shake uncontrollably in response to song on the radio or a smell that he couldn’t be sure was real or sense-memory. and of ruined relationships and anger and american hypocrisy.
and i also remember that was the day i learned what “valor” meant. he used “valor” in a sentence and i didn’t know that word, and when i asked him to explain “valor” he became very quiet. and i can’t remember precisely what he said, if he ever offered me the dictionary definition or not, but i do remember him looking very sad, and saying something about our country’s idea of “valor”, and also something about a broken promise. and there was an edge to his words that i couldn’t parse at the time that i would later come to understand was bitterness, that he sounded bitter.
to this day i can’t hear or read the word “valor” without seeing sunlight coming through his office window at a slant, close-to-sunset light, and feeling the kind of quiet, confused, completely internalized panic a child feels when they sense that a grown up is trying very hard not to weep in their presence.
“The written word is alive too (you just have to prick it with a hatpin to see it start to bleed), but it enjoys its autonomy and physicality, it can become three-dimensional, polychrome, can rise up from the page hanging on to balloons, or drop on to it in parachutes. There are words that, in order to stay attached to the page, have to be sewn on to it, the thread passing through the loops in those letters that have spaces in them. And if you look at the writing with a lens, the thin sliver of ink turns out to be permeated with a thick flow of meaning: like a motorway, like a swarming crowd, like a river brimming with fish.”
— Italo Calvino on Luigi Serafini’s Codex Seraphinianus, tr. Martin McLaughlin, from “The Encyclopedia of a Visionary,” Collection of Sand (Mariner Books, 2013; orig. pub. in Italian, 1984)
I recall at least one of you guys having worked with livestock animals. Why are cows so damn indestructible while horses keel over and die if mercury is in retrograde or a dog barked in Kazakhstan?
gettingvetted here.
Let me tell you a story about how livestock animals work.
In the beginning, God created the horse. God looked at the horse and saw that it was beautiful and strong. “However,” God said, “it breaks too easily.”
Then God created the cow. God looked at the cow and saw that it was more durable than the horse, and tasted good to boot. “However,” God said, “it poops too much.”
Then God created the goat. God looked at the goat and saw that it was perfect.
God looked around and saw that he still had some spare bits of fluff on his work table, but no brains to put into it. So then God created the sheep.
Now let me tell you what my equine surgery professor said on the first day of class.
“Horses are only interested in two things: homicide, and suicide.”
My entirely half-assed understanding of Why Horses Explode If You Look At Them Funny, As Explained To Me By My Aunt That Raises Horses After Her Third Glass Of Wine:
Horses don’t got enough toes.
So, back right after the dinosaurs fucked off and joined the choir invisible, the first ancestors of horses were scampering about, little capybara-looking things called Eohippus, and they had four toes per limb:
They functioned pretty well, as near as we can tell from the fossil record, but they were mostly messing around in the leaf litter of dense forests, where one does not necessarily need to be fast but one should be nimble, and the 4 toes per limb worked out pretty good.
But the descendants of Eophippus moved out of the forest where there was lots of cover and onto the open plains, where there was better forage and visibility, but nowhere to hide, so the proto-horses that could ZOOM the fastest and out run thier predators (or, at least, their other herd members) tended to do well. Here’s the thing- having lots of toes means your foot touches the ground longer when you run, and it spreads a lot of your momentum to the sides. Great if you want to pivot and dodge, terrible if you want to ZOOM. So losing toes started being a major advantage for proto-horses:
The Problem with having fewer toes and running Really Fucking Fast is that it kind of fucks your everything else up.
When a horse runs at full gallop, it sort of… stops actively breathing, letting the slosh of it’s guts move its lungs, which is tremendously calorically efficient and means their breathing doesn’t fall out of sync. But it also means that the abdominal lining of a horse is weirdly flexible in ways that lead to way more hernias and intestinal tangling than other ungulates. It also has a relatively weak diaphragm for something it’s size, so ANY kind of respiratory infection is a Major Fucking Problem because the horse has weak lungs.
When a Horse runs Real Fucking Fast, it also develops a bit of a fluid dynamics problem- most mammals have the blood going out of thier heart real fast and coming back from the far reaches of the toes much slower and it’s structure reflects that. But since there is Only The One Toe, horse blood comes flying back up the veins toward the heart way the fuck faster than veins are meant to handle, which means horses had to evolve special veins that constrict to slow the Blood Down, which you will recognize as a Major Cardiovascular Disease in most mammals. This Poorly-regulated blood speed problems means horses are prone to heart problems, burst veins, embolisms, and hemophilia. Also they have apparently a billion blood types and I’m not sure how that’s related but I am sure that’s another Hot Mess they have to deal with.
ALSO, the Blood-Going-Too-Fast issue and being Just Huge Motherfuckers means horses have trouble distributing oxygen properly, and have compensated by creating fucked up bones that replicate the way birds store air in thier bones but much, much shittier. So if a horse breaks it’s leg, not only is it suffering a Major Structural Issue (also also- breaking a toe is much more serious when that toe is YOUR WHOLE DAMN FOOT AND HALF YOUR LEG), it’s also hving a hemmorhage and might be sort of suffocating a little.
ALSO ALSO, the fast that horses had to deal with Extremely Fast Predators for most of thier evolution means that they are now afflicted with evolutionarily-adaptive Anxiety, which is not great for thier already barely-functioning hearts, and makes them, frankly, fucking mental. Part of the reason horses are so aggro is that if deinied the opportunity to ZOOM, it’s options left are “Kill everyone and Then Yourself” or “The same but skip step one and Just Fucking Die”. The other reason is that a horse is in a race against itself- it’s gotta breed before it falls apart, so a Horse basically has a permanent terrorboner.
TL;DR: Horses don’t have enough toes and that makes them very, very fast, but also sickly, structurally unsound, have wildly OP blood that sometimes kills them, and drives them fucking insane.
You probably hear a lot of "DON'T EDIT AS YOU WRITE" advice, don't you? 😬
This is a dangerously vague piece of advice and one that's often taken too literally. Here's a quick breakdown of edits that are actually GOOD during writing.
*parts a bead curtain as i enter the room, carrying a glass of lemonade*
hey….
nothing you ever read, watch, or participate in will be ideologically pure and without its problems. your quest to consume the most unproblematic material will be, in the end, fruitless. your enjoyment of anything will be sapped away, leaving you a husk starved for media.
it is okay to enjoy things that have problems to them, so long as you do it critically and with an open mind, and take care to consider others.
jacobvanloon
origamiaround
tangentwithtanner
