Arthurian knight kink, by which I mean our RP scene must be prefaced with a lengthy apologetics establishing that it totally happened exactly like this and any other chronicler who tells it differently is full of shit.
I'm going to need you to approach me three times in a series of increasingly flimsy disguises by which I will be utterly fooled, each time asking me one of these five riddles, and you have to act like you're genuinely mad when I get the answers wrong. I can't get it up if the scorn isn't sincere.
It's (almost) that time of year again, and well I'm doing things a little different this year so I figure I'd give the prompt list a little early! Arthurian August is a yearly art/writing/gif making/whatever other creative things challenge during the month of August centered on the Arthurian Legends. In the past I've had a prompt a week for the month of August, but this year I'm trying a bingo card format, pictured below:
The idea is you can check as many applicable boxes as you want for each creation you make, so if you make one or two things you can still get a bingo, granted you include all five prompts between those creations. Of course if you only want to check one box per creation that's fine too. The goal is to kinda open this up so people who don't have much time can still complete something. (More rules and prompt explanations under the cut)
Rules:
The challenge officially runs from August 1st to the 31st, put things in the tag #arthuriana august and/or @caer-gai and I'll reblog it!
You can create in any medium you want! (Please no AI)
NSFW and gore are allowed, just tag appropriately! I will use discretion while reblogging
I will be checking the tag and reblogging between August 1st and August 31st 2026! Feel free to post before or after that time frame if you need to, but I might not see it if you don't tag me
MOST IMPORTANT RULE OF THE WHOLE CHALLENGE: have fun! Don't push yourself too hard this is a silly and fun thing! Take the time you need, just tag me when you're done. I run these because I like seeing what you make <3
As always send me asks/notes/DMs/page boys with any and all questions! I'm happy to help=)
Prompt Explanations/Ideas-
Inspired By A German Text: Create something inspired by/containing a character, storyline ect from a German Text (ie Diu Crône, Lanzelet, Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal).
Featuring An Obscure Character: Create something that centers on a character you consider to be obscure. Obviously obscurity is subjective so I leave that mostly to your own judgement.
Comedic: Create something with a comedic tone, in the comedy genere, or having to do with the more comedic elelments of arthuriana.
wlw: Create something involving a romantic or sexual pairing that falls under the 'women loving women' umbrella.
Inspired By An English Text: Create something inspired by/containing a character, storyline ect from an English Text (ie Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle).
LGBTQ+: Create something with a character(s), theme(s), or story that falls under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. (gay, bi, pan, trans, intersex, ace/aro, nonbinary, ect)
Fanwork or Inspired By Med Lit: Create something that is a fanwork of or inspired by a medieval text.
Family: Create something that has to do with family and family dynamics.
Fanwork or Inspired By Other Media: Create something that is a fanwork of or inspired by some other arthuriana media, like tv shows, games, comics, songs, etc.
Based on an Obscure Text: Create something that centers on a text you consider to be obscure. Obviously obscurity is subjective so I leave that mostly to your own judgement.
Tragic: Create something with a tragic tone, in the tragedy genere, or having to do with the more tragic elelments of arthuriana.
Inspired By A Text In Another Language: Create something inspired by/containing a character, storyline ect from a text originally written in a language other than the four listed on this card (for example texts from the Dutch, Icelandic, Yiddish, Italian, or Latin traditions would count).
Woman POV/MC : Create something where a woman is the main/focus character or from a woman's point of view.
Friendship: Create something that has to do with friendship.
Happy: Create something with a happy tone or having to do with the more happy/light hearted elelments of arthuriana.
Featuring An Obscure (Non-Romantic Pairing): Create something that focuses on a pairing (or larger) combination of characters who are not often discussed/seen together in modern works. One or more characters can be popular themselves, its the combination that's obscure in this case. Additionally this must be a non-romantic relationship, there's a different square for that one. Obviously obscurity is subjective so I leave that mostly to your own judgement.
Fanwork or Inspired By A Retelling: Create something that is a fanwork of or inspired by a modern retelling.
Romance: Create something focused on or having to do with romance or romantic feelings.
Fanwork or Inspired By A Movie: Create something that is a fanwork of or inspired by an arthurian movie.
In A New Medium: Create something in a medium that you don't usually use. (ie if you usually write, draw something, or make a webweave.)
Inspired By A Welsh Text: Create something inspired by/containing a character, storyline ect from a Welsh Text (ie Peredur, The Mabinogoin).
Legacy: Create something that has to do with the theme of legacy, either within the arthuriana or the legacy of the arthurian legend.
Angsty: Create something with a angsty tone or having to do with the more angsty elements of arthuriana.
Featuring An Obscure Ship: Create something that centers on a romantic/sexual relationship between two or more characters that aren't frequently paired together. As with the non-romantic pairing, this is about the relationship being obscure not necessarily the characters in it. The fandom kids call this a "rarepair". Obviously obscurity is subjective so I leave that mostly to your own judgement.
Inspired By A French Text: Create something inspired by/containing a character, storyline ect from a French Text (ie Chretien de Troyes's Romances, The Vulgate Cycle, Le Bel Inconnu).
Once again, please let me know if you have any questions! Have fun and I hope to see y'all in August!!
One thing I will always lose my mind over is so many vegans being entirely anti zoos. For the love of everything please educate yourself about aza/eaza/waza zoos and the good they do for animal wellfare and conservation.
Are there a shit ton of horrible zoos? Yes. Should those zoos exist? No.
But actual good waza accredited zoos and facilities have done so much good for animal wellfare and have brought several species back from the brink of extinction in the wild.
Do I and also many many zookeepers in those facilities wish they didn't have to exist? Hell yeah, the end goal should be for zoos to not be necessary. But with how the world currently is and the way humans are negatively impacting virtually every habitat on earth it's just not realistic.
This simply isn't a black and white issue like many want it to be.
Would it be incredible for every wild animal to just be able to live an incredible life in the wild? Fuck yeah! It just isn't possible atm.
Also there is like a world of difference between for example the San Diego zoo and some kind of roadside zoo, which offers encounters with baby animals.
Some of this comes from people not understanding what veganism is. Veganism is not just "we should treat animals the best ever", its the idea that animals are not ours to use for food, entertainment, clothes, ect.
Vegan issues with zoos is less about "good zoos" and "bad zoos" and more about "if you're going to do animal rescue don't make it a circus too"
The zoos I see love to tell us about how important they are to conservation; the conservationists I see don't go on and on about the importance of zoos.
Sometimes an animal goes extinct in the wild and we're able to reintroduce it thanks to zoos. That's very rare, and it's a very good thing. Those animals were still bred and raised by for-profit companies whose goals are NOT respecting them, it's to make money off of them. If your zoo is legally a charity then please correct me.
Good zoos are called sanctuaries. Sanctuaries deserve your support and expertise.
All the reasons you hate the impact of the AI industry are all the same reasons you should hate the animal ag industry. It's destructive to local habitats and ecosystems, it's dependent on environmental racism, and it's predicated on a violation of consent.
plus, animal agriculture causes so much more harm to the environment than ai usage. not that either is good, but meat consumption is literally one of the main factors contributing to climate change!!
It’s more comfortable to have outrage for a system you don’t directly participate in (AI use) rather than a system you do (industrial animal agriculture).
Toxic dairy, chicken, and pig farms have plagued poor communities for decades, and no one paid attention because they were mostly Black and brown communities.
But now that the data centers are in white communities, suddenly the will and outrage is there.
I don't know if human meat is inherently vegan, and I would lean no, on account of the varying morality on acquiring it, BUT
I mean if it was definitely ethical (from like a friend's amputation or something) and offered to me, I'd try it. It's about as ethical as meat gets, and I'm up for a new experience
I absolutely would not eat any of my friend's amputated leg at their autocannibalism party, never in one million years, but it would be vegan if I did.
The idea that poor people can go vegan because plant-based options are cheaper (which is true), does not take into account those who are so much in poverty that they have to rely on soup kitchens and pantries. I get food delivered to my home once a week from a food pantry, there aren't many vegan options but the options that do exist could not sustain me for a week. This isn't a knock on veganism btw. I think people who can contribute less to factory farming should! But I think we also need to consider that poverty puts people at others whims. Yea I've been a poor vegetarian, and it is possible, I'm sure there are poor vegans who live on pantries too. Eating plant based is hard when most of the donations to food banks aren't plant based. Ya know what the pantry usually gives me? Mac and cheese! Eggs! And things I refuse to eat like chicken noodle soup.
This one is really real actually, and I have been here before.
I told the food pantry I was (at the time) vegetarian and I still got canned meats, meat based soups, ect. I gave them away, but felt shitty for it. I needed the food, the calories, and I didn't think it was too hard of a request, as the pantry has plenty of options that I can eat.
Many of the people who make the argument online that it's too expensive to go vegan are simply ill informed, and don't understand what a vegan diet (can) look like. They picture buying justegg instead of eggs and not changing anything, and wonder how anyone can afford that when they eat 3 dozen eggs a week or whatever.
BUT there still is an issue of lacking the resources to meaningfully turn down non-vegan food. I am lucky - right now I'm bad off, but have a lot of vegan pantries and food distros available. I can still stay vegan, but if I was in a worse location, that would be a lot less viable.
Vegans can and should, instead of nit picking every little case of people who have poor food resources, to advocate for and increase in distribution of whole grains, starchy tubers, beans, veg, ect. within pantries, soup kitchens, food distros, ect.
This one is true; not having enough money doesn't price you out of veganism (most vegans are poor!), but having zero money absolutely does. As does living in a food desert.
We need to be dedicating our resources to providing adequate food options to everyone (eliminating food deserts) and to reducing poverty. Vegans should be focusing on this, and they are.
I think this might be one of the most incredible, unsettling and symbolic photos of today’s America I’ve ever seen. I can’t stop looking at it. It’s perfect.
Peeling off the broken breastplate of a stoic knight who only fights and never speaks, just to realize there’s nothing in there. Not metaphorically—the armor is literally empty. It doesn’t appear to affect him. If the armor stays mostly in the shape of a knight, he just gets back up to keep fighting. But with the chest plate off he just sits there, equally impervious to curiosity as I reach up into the cavity where his body might’ve gone. Stubbornly, no answers are found anywhere in there.
So I forge him a new breastplate and on the inside, because I know he has plenty of room, I put a little pocket. Not big enough to hold anything functional of course. Just a little extra piece to see what he’ll do with it.
He comes back next time with some grievous injury to his nothing, presumably from the massive shredded gash across his thigh plates. He sits and waits. I fix it for him. He is still nothing in there. I decide to add a drawing on the inside, of the type of beast I imagine could rend metal into scraps with a single blow. He puts it back on. He no longer moves as if he is injured.
Over time the interior of the knight becomes decorated with whatever odds and ends I could think to attach to the inside of a guy who’s got room to carry it. What really gets me is that he never removes any of it. Never requests a change. Not even when I installed a curtain rod for a small tapestry, or a bud vase to carry roses for his beloved, or an accordion folder for letters. He didn’t say a word for any of the many, many drawings of mythical beasts that now fight forever inside of his shell.
There are plenty of other forges. I’m not entirely sure why he keeps coming back here anyway. We’re pretty popular, but he could get his armor fixed a lot quicker (and with fewer ridiculous modifications) literally anywhere else. I asked him if I could get a look at his nothing again. He flipped up his visor and nodded his head so I could take a look. It was the same as it had been, filled with drawings and trinkets and weird little fixtures I’d put in there. I asked if he was annoyed by it, or liked it, or felt anything at all, but he literally only ever says nothing, so I’m not sure why I asked.
There’s not much room left in his nothing now. When he comes back for repairs I’ve had to fix my own foolish additions. Some of these pieces are intricate and irritating to repair, but I fix them anyway. It feels wrong to take any of it away from him now, even though I’ve been rudely encroaching on his nothingness to the point where it’s barely even there. How he squeezes his nothing back into a body so full, I’ll never understand. But it’s a game to me now, finding a spot not yet filled and putting something there. A dark part of me wonders if he ever gets filled up completely, if whatever sorcery holds the nothing-knight together may break, and it will all clatter unceremoniously to the floor.
When he hands me his breastplate yet again, it is so shockingly disfigured that I wonder if being made of nothing has somehow kept him alive. No ordinary knight could sustain such injuries. So I fix it. And he waits, unmoving, in a quiet corner of the forge. It’s like he’s watching, even though I know the reading glasses I put inside his helmet were just for fun. I’m careful to put it all back exactly the way it was when he last left. There’s no room to add more this time.
He examines the breastplate, and pauses before putting it back on, like he’s looking for something. Is he worried about the fit? But it suits him just as it always did. He calmly points to a little space, about an inch, between a miniature shelf and one of many pockets. There’s nothing there. I ask him what’s wrong, and again he points. It’s the most emotion I’ve ever seen from him, and it’s barely anything at all. I take it to mean he wants something there.
I spend some time engraving a little snail in the gap. He watches, as much as nothing can watch. When I’m finished he holds the breastplate, but he doesn’t put it on right away. I ask him if something’s still wrong. He says nothing, and puts it on. I tell him I can’t add anything else. Even if he could ask, there’s no room left.
Next time he comes back, there’s nothing wrong with his armor—he lets me check to make sure. I ask him what he’s doing here. Out from one of many pockets, he retrieves a tiny rusted knife. It’s in miserable condition, barely worth saving. I tell him I could make him a nice new one, but I’ll fix it if he likes. He puts it away and reaches around to find something else, a needle and thread. Better condition, but I’m not a sewist and I tell him as much. He puts them away. He then retrieves a little twisted piece of wax paper. I open it. It’s candy. I ask if I can eat it. He says nothing. I eat it. It’s flavored with cinnamon. I’m surprised he let me take it.
He keeps bringing me candy now. His armor is the most laborious to repair out of every client my forge serves, but it’s my own fault so I can’t complain. Sometimes he keeps me company while I work. I wonder if he is trying to tell me something when he hands me mints. I wonder again at the lemon lozenges. He stares at me when I eat, as much as nothing can stare.
One day he brings me a little jar of honey. I thank him, I tell him I’ll save it for dinner. He watches me work, he puts his repaired armor back on, and he stays. My shift passes slowly, and when I finally pack up to leave it’s dark outside. He follows me out of the forge. I ask him where he’s going. He points to the jar in my hand. I ask him if he wants to watch me eat it. He says nothing, but the nothing-knight clearly wants something, so I open the lid and dunk my finger in the honey. I try not to get any on my chin. He stands there, inches away, watching me try to consume this jar of honey without a utensil. It tastes like clovers. About half the jar is left when I’ve finally had enough of pretending to be a bear, but he doesn’t move to leave.
I ask if he’s going to follow me home. He says nothing. I tell him he can if he wants to. Again, nothing. I start walking, and he follows at my side. I know he’s not going to say anything ever, so I fill the silence. I tell him I’m grateful for the sweets, I tell him about how his various components are made, I tell him I’ve never met anyone made of nothing before. I tell him it’s a rare opportunity for a smith to work so much on the inside of something. He says nothing. I tell him again how much I like the candy.
It occurs to me that maybe filling me with sugar is as close as he can get to filling someone else’s empty armor with trinkets. I’m not sure if that’s really why he does it. I tell him I don’t have room to be filled with anything on the inside, not like him. I’m not a container for much besides food. He offers me another piece of candy. Maybe he likes containing something, the way I like to feel full. Maybe it’s nothing at all.
—
I didn’t edit this even a little bit. Thanks for reading!
The Green Knight (2021) thing I didn't exactly get? Maybe?
Maybe I just gotta read the original tale again (been since 9th grade, and I wasn't paying attention like that), but from the brief synopsis I just brushed up on, I think my questions come from aspects added and altered in this adaptation. Because first, this Green Knight seems more magic as himself and not Bertilak enchanted. Whether Gawain is beheaded at the end also isn't that clear. But mostly, what's the deal with the belts in this one?
The two green belts and how they were presented threw me off. I was trying to talk about this with my husband, but we just weren't on the same page. So Gawain's mom, who is a witch and apparently involved in orchestrating the Green Knight's visit, gives him the first green belt and says it will protect him. It didn't protect him well enough to keep him from getting mugged and it stolen, though. Then, the Lady inexplicably, but presumably for magic reasons, gives him an identical green belt she says will protect him.
Question: in this adaptation, would either belt have actually protected him? Were one or both of them genuinely magic, and if just one, why are they different? Where I didn't fully understand my husband's take is that he felt like they'd both work, but the second wasn't as psychologically comforting because Gawain knew it was "fake." And my question was, "If they both work, what makes the second fake?" And the only answer he could give me was that it wasn't the one his mama made. But if they would both magically work, though, what's the functional difference? And if the second wouldn't work, why would the mycelial network of witchy fate lead the Lady to give it to him? Did the second being "fake" impact his decision to take it off and accept his fate? Making it two separate belts complicates that moment a little. And the way he takes it off makes that moment pretty important. The presentation of the second belt heavily implies magic in its origin, at least in how the Lady knew to make and give him such a specific replica. And if it's by magic that he gets it, why wouldn't it be just as magic in its function as the first?
But it makes more sense to me if they don't work magically and are just a psychological trick to give him confidence (what I thought at the beginning) or to force him to decisively commit to keeping his promises without a fall-back (what I think after). In flinching, Gawain has a vision of the life he would have if he survived: continuing to be an asshole and fumble Essel, do her wrong regarding their son, marry someone else for status, lose his son in war, get attacked, and finally, remove the belt when he's ready to die because the jig is up. So he sees that that life, continuing to run from responsibility, is not the life he wants nor a noble one. He removes the belt and allows the Green Knight to behead him. Whether the belt(s) would have worked as a ward or not, it made the act of removing it tied to Gawain's acceptance of responsibility, facing death because he had promised to take an equivalent blow and owning the fact that his blow was idiotic. And maybe it doesn't matter for that if the belt worked or not, because he did take it off. It would only matter if he didn't, lived, and then had to choose to keep wearing it or not.
The way that the old woman at the castle (meant to be Morgan le Fay) was kept so ambiguous, and Gawain's mom, not Morgan, was written as the one to orchestrate the Green Knight's visit makes things make less sense. To me. I also didn't get her advice for him to "watch" at court, because it didn't seem to amount to anything. I was expecting him to have to notice something, but he was just a regular idiot who chopped the Green Knight's head off. She should've told him to listen, I guess.
But then there's the fox, too. At the boat, the fox warns Gawain against going to the Green Knight because he'll die. It asks if Gawain is fully aware of what awaits him and says the man who is aware would heed the warning and not go, and that man wears the green belt. That bit seemed to turn the belt from a symbol of avoiding accountability to one of wise self-preservation. Because the fox had been presented as a benevolent nature spirit of sorts, being friendly with Gawain and having a good connotation, it makes Gawain progressing despite the warning look more foolhardy, trusting his green belt to protect him, than a responsible man going to face his consequence. It detracted from what I thought was the point and muddied the waters around what the belt was meant to do. The only time in the movie, apart from taking the belt off, that we really see Gawain moving forward without the background prospect of surviving was when he continued without the first belt after it was stolen, which is then undercut by the presentation of the second belt. Unless the repeated "are you sure?" sense was the point, which it may be, and that's fine.
I just found it weird to have two belts like that, and my point is more on whether the movie wanted the audience to think they worked or not and whether there was a real difference between them.
It's left ambiguous whether the belt (I believe they're both the exact same belt) would have worked, which puts us in the same head space as Gawaine. He's pretty sure it's a magic belt, but he can't be certain.
Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight is about how you shouldn't take chivalry so seriously; Gawaine is the ultimate knight, casually fighting dragons off-screen, but he almost dies in the horrible cold (not usually part of the hero stories) and he gets himself into this idiotic suicide mission by leaning too hard into playing the game.
In The Green Knight (2021), Gawaine is instead a terrible knight, not the least bit chivalrous (which would a hard take to justify in the context of greater Arthuriana lol, but it's just for the film). So I think that what you're seeing is the added tension between "It's only a game," taking chivalry so seriously will get you killed, and his need to grow up and take some responsibility in his life and start being decent to Essel.
So Gawaine continuing on past the fox is foolhardy, but it isn't brave or taking responsibility either: It's cheating. He doesn't ignore the fox out of a sense of duty, at least not at first; he ignores the fox because he has protection and can't be touched anyways. So it's sort of trying to have its cake and eat it too: He needs to take the belt off as a form of taking responsibility for himself and his actions, and growing up to actually be a half-decent knight, but his idea of what it means to be a knight is warped into this self-sacrifice sort of thing, when everyone around him (including the Green Knight) understands that it's only a game.
He needs to take responsibility for his life and he needs to not stupidly throw his life away, and going to the green chapel wearing the magic protection belt (especially if it's just a psychological trick) manages not to do either.
When he takes off the belt, there's no triumphant score. It's not a straightforward passing the test. Taking the belt off is more chivalrous than cheating, but he shouldn't have been in the green chapel at all; it represents a lesson learned, but he's still trying to kill himself. The Green Knight spares him by making a lighthearted joke. Because it's only a game. That's the second lesson Gawaine needed to learn.
art by Tima Lotah Link (Chumash) for the Native Voices 16th Annual Short Play Festival
"merciless indian savages" is a direct quote from the US declaration of independence, and this is referencing the art of "manifest destiny" as a white woman standing over the us countryside
a new reality tv show called So you think you can write Doctor Who
twelve episodes, twelve contestants - a mix of annoying middle aged sci fi authors, fan fic authors and random people off the street
a variety of against the clock writing tasks, big finish scripts, ability to interact with actors without shouting at them and challenges where you have no budget or doctor for an episode
judged by solely by christopher eccleston
this is how you find the new doctor who showrunner
No. The general idea dates back at least to Herodotus, who was not exactly a progressive warning about fascism; he was contrasting the Greeks as "strong men created by hard, poor geography" with the Persians as "weak men created by fertile and wealthy lands" (who also didn't have slavery and didn't completely despise women).
I can't confirm this 100%, but I'm seeing sources saying that the specific wording from the meme we all know is from the novel Those Who Remain, in which it is said by a post-apocalypse warlord ultra machismo type about how much better his men are than pre-apocalypse men.
I always wonder what happens to pet dogs and cats in the vegan utopia where there is no farming of animals for food. Contrary to (some) vegan beliefs: Dogs and cats need meat. And listen, maybe I could personally give up meat but I am not giving up my fucking cats.
Do we only do farming for animal food? Do we completely abolish farming animals for food for everything? Do the domestic species we bred specifically for human use just die out and, with it, the domesticated dog and cat? What about zoos? Or ‘sanctuaries’ that house carnivorous animals? What actually happens to domesticated farm animals? Do we just stop production after every farm animal is slaughtered? Like what is the plan here?
Should we mass-euthanize any animal that relies on farmed meat?
This metaphor isn't 1:1, but: This is kind of like being skeptical of building a house where you want it because someday it will be destroyed by continental drift. Like, yeah, okay, but that's not gonna happen until nobody alive today is even remembered. You really don't have to worry about it.
So it is with imagining what the world would look like if we abolished animal agriculture tomorrow and had trillions of animals left over. Kill them all? If everyone goes vegan are they gonna kill all the pets? That will not happen, I promise you. Not ever. Let's talk about the reality of the situation and how we might actually fix it.
If you go 100% vegan yourself and keep feeding your cat farmed meat, you are doing SO much more for the environment and the animals and humanity than anyone else you know. Same goes for if you keep horseback riding, or if you buy one pair of leather boots that lasts your whole life, or or if you have animal products in your meds. Go vegan except for the one thing, or except for all of those things; it is never all or nothing.
origamiaround
kianamaiart
ellievsbear
baratheonpilled
titsay
