unrealistic to me that at no point during Jason's time in the League of Assassins was there a period of Ra's desperately trying to figure out what the fuck brought Jason back to life inside that coffin and that at no point was there a conversation that was like,
Jason, on a medical table for the twelfth experiment that day: how do we even know it was me, though?
Ra's: what do you mean?
Jason, shrugging: like- maybe i was just in a magic coffin. maybe it had nothing to do with me, maybe it was my environment. have you ever read the book 'pet cemetery'?
Ra's:
Ra's: *squints deeply*
Ra's: no. if it was the graveyard then you wouldn't be the only person that came back to life. you're being ridiculous.
Jason: i dunno. maybe it was just that one specific patch of grass.
Ra's:
Ra's: hm.
Bruce finds out Jason came back to life way earlier than planned because halfway through patrol he gets an alert of a disturbance at Gotham Cemetery and when he and Tim get there it's to see Jason and Ra's in the dark with headlamps on next to Jason's now dug-up grave, dirt everywhere as Jason holds a shovel and Ra's holds the corpse of a dead chicken over the hole, ready to lower it, surrounded by league assassins either standing guard or holding notebooks and pens for if something actually happens and Ra's wants to take notes.
Damian is in the car with the window cracked wrapped in Jason's jacket and tiredly playing temple run on Jason's phone while he waits for them to be done so they can go home. when he sees Bruce arrive he sighs loudly and does up the window. Batman and Robin land in the graveyard and everybody freezes like the scene in ratatouille when the humans catch the rats in the kitchen, and it takes Jason two solid weeks to convince Bruce that no, they were not trying to replace his corpse with a chicken, they were doing science-
and not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but another reason I hate the return of 2000’s th*nspo shit is bc starving does make women frail and has longer term consequences like early osteoporosis, brittle bones/teeth, insomnia, ect. Your muscles will start eating themselves. It also makes you extremely emotional and severely lowers your capacity for critical thinking not bc you’re a girl but because your brain isn’t getting any fucking nutrients so idk I just feel like its very convenient that every time there’s an uptick in fascist rhetoric and women’s rights are being stripped suddenly it’s peak fashion for women to be starving, weak, and exhausted
Please remember to eat. Your body literally contains you. Please take care of it. Fuel it properly. Like if you're making sure the electronics in your life are charged, then make sure your body is too.
You are allowed to find things hot in theory while also never wanting to actually do them in real life btw. You can get off on whatever wild shit in your imagination and still prefer to be very vanilla in real life. Or not want to have sex at all in real life. You don't owe the universe anything in exchange for your dirty mind.
It’s truly interesting to think that the circus was the first actual multi monster species organization to be created. It makes me believe that the cast may be far older than we already imagine, after all, to be the first at something that now days seems to be more common to happen must mean it was very long ago that the circus was created.
HOW CAN I NOT LOVE THIS BLUSHING MESS OF A MAN?! UGH
Stop thinking about Harley for a moment and let me get to you already! 💙
Damn, and some people still doubt greenapple can be a thing even tho THEY BOTH CAN’T STOP TALKING ABOUT EACH OTHER. Just fuck already, geez XD
This was such a obvious thing given how normal animals already show you they can tell the difference by how they act when you’re on your period or injured. But it’s really good to actually have a canon answer to that lol
Neko canonically roaming around the circus observing them is so cute!!! >w<
All pictures where taken from the most recent AMA at TFC official blog: @freakcircusofhorrors
hate it when people call ada lovelace the first female programmer, when in reality she was the first programmer ever. she wrote programs for a machine before it was ever constructed
Every time you catch yourself going, "Fuck, are humans just inherently evil and naturally inclined to selfishness and harm???" you HAVE to remember that that's literally a core ideal of Christianity.
So if it feels inescapable and like evidence of it is everywhere, whether at times or always, that might just because you're in a Western country where you're surrounded by Christians who believe that, fundamentally, in their worldview. And also they talk and make art about it all the time and run the vast majority of news outlets. And spent over a thousand years burning any art or texts that disagreed with them. Etc. etc.
If you're gonna come to as drastic and painful a conclusion as that, at least take the time first to make sure you're not working with biased evidence (surrounded by too many people and cultural products that believe original sin is real)
And if it turns out the feeling WAS partly the result of cultural Christianity, then hey, that's great news, because it means there's that much (and it really is SO MUCH) less evidence that humans inherently suck. Which is good, because we don't
ignore that cultural trauma, ask an archeologist / paleontologist.
how often do we find human remains / burials attributable to a peaceful death of old age, or at least to disease / wild animals? and attributable to human violence, i.e. with traces of weapon impacts?
to use an old quote, the last ape became the first human not when he picked up a stick to reach some fruit, but when he used that stick to bash another ape over the head and take away his fruit.
I disagree with pretty much all of that, actually. Modern archeology is only just in the process of pulling itself out of hundreds of years of racism, bias, colonialism, disproven assumptions, widespread graverobbing, and massive, blatant pseudoscience; many ideas and publications in the field that older than about 20 years are of highly questionable provenance.
I personally am much more convinced and compelled by newer theories that, if any piece of technology made us human, it was not the weapon - it was the carrier bag, the story, and/or fire. (But not fire with the primary purpose of violence, mind you - fire with the primary purpose of heat and food and sanitation)
Here's a quote on this from one of my absolute favorite thinkers and writers, Ursula K. Le Guin:
If you haven't got something to put it in, food will escape you-
even something as uncombative and unresourceful as an oat. You
put as many as you can into your stomach while they are handy, that
being the primary container; but what about tomorrow morning
when you wake up and it's cold and raining and wouldn't it be good
to have just a few handfuls of oats to chew on and give little Oom to
make her shut up, but how do you get more than one stomachful
and one handful home? So you get up and go to the damned soggy
oat patch in the rain, and wouldn't it be a good thing if you had
something to put Baby Oo Oo in so that you could pick the oats with
both hands? A leaf a gourd a shell a net a bag a sling a sack a bottle a pot a box a container. A holder. A recipient.
The first cultural device was probably a recipient. . . . Many
theorizers feel that the earliest cultural inventions must have
been a container to hold gathered products and some kind of
sling or net carrier.
So says Elizabeth Fisher in Women's Creation (McGraw-Hill, 1975).
But no, this cannot be. Where is that wonderful, big, long, hard thing, a bone, I believe, that the Ape Man first bashed somebody
with in the movie and then, grunting with ecstasy at having
achieved the first proper murder, flung up into the sky...? I don't know. I don 't even care. I'm not telling that story. We've heard it, we've all heard all about all the sticks and spears and swords, the things to bash and poke and hit with, the long, hard things, but we have not heard about the thing to put things in, the container for the thing contained. That is a new story. That is news...
It sometimes seems that that story is approaching its end. Lest
there be no more telling of stories at all , some of us out here in the
wild oats, amid the alien corn, think we'd better start telling another
one, which maybe people can go on with when the old one's fin-
ished. Maybe. The trouble is , we've all let ourselves become part of
the killer story, and so we may get finished along with it. Hence it is
with a certain feeling of urgency that I seek the nature, subject,
words of the other story, the untold one, the life story.
-via Ursula K. Le Guin, The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction. Originally published 1986, new edition with forewords and commentaries published 2024.
Oh also if any technology did make us human, archeological evidence currently very strongly argues it was when we harnessed fire and invented cooking.
Fire is literally the reason our brains are larger than any other species of ape's, because harnessing fire meant we spent radically less energy spent on digestion - and those excess resources instead changed the evolution of the human brain.
Also fire is probably the reason we're not fully covered in hair anymore, evolutionarily - because we evolved in equatorial Africa, where not wearing a fur coat everywhere was an evolutionary advantage due to, you know, the temperature of it all. Once we could make our own heat to survive the cold nights and winters, less insulation was a huge evolutionary advance in equatorial regions especially
Cooking may be more than just a part of your daily routine, it may be what made your brain as powerful as it is
Wherever humans have gone in the world, they have carried with them two things, language and fire. As they traveled through tropical forests they hoarded the precious embers of old fires and sheltered them from downpours. When they settled the barren Arctic, they took with them the memory of fire, and recreated it in stoneware vessels filled with animal fat. Darwin himself considered these the two most significant achievements of humanity. It is, of course, impossible to imagine a human society that does not have language, but—given the right climate and an adequacy of raw wild food—could there be a primitive tribe that survives without cooking? In fact, no such people have ever been found. Nor will they be, according to a provocative theory by Harvard biologist Richard Wrangham, who believes that fire is needed to fuel the organ that makes possible all the other products of culture, language included: the human brain.
Every animal on earth is constrained by its energy budget; the calories obtained from food will stretch only so far. And for most human beings, most of the time, these calories are burned not at the gym, but invisibly, in powering the heart, the digestive system and especially the brain, in the silent work of moving molecules around within and among its 100 billion cells. A human body at rest devotes roughly one-fifth of its energy to the brain, regardless of whether it is thinking anything useful, or even thinking at all. Thus, the unprecedented increase in brain size that hominids embarked on around 1.8 million years ago had to be paid for with added calories either taken in or diverted from some other function in the body. Many anthropologists think the key breakthrough was adding meat to the diet. But Wrangham and his Harvard colleague Rachel Carmody think that’s only a part of what was going on in evolution at the time. What matters, they say, is not just how many calories you can put into your mouth, but what happens to the food once it gets there. How much useful energy does it provide, after subtracting the calories spent in chewing, swallowing and digesting? The real breakthrough, they argue, was cooking.
-via Smithsonian Magazine, June 2013. Emphasis mine. In the time since this article was published, what was considered a "provocative theory" in 2013 has become a matter of increasing scientific evidence and scientific consensus.
Richard Wrangham lays out his theory as a whole in his 2010 book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human.
For more current summaries on the history of fire, and scientific and archeological evidence for its role in human evolution:
Evolutionary fire ecology: An historical account and future directions.
August 2023. BioScience, volume 73, issue 8, pages 602–608. Permalink: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad059, paywall-free.
The discovery of fire by humans: a long and convoluted process.
By J. A. J. Gowlett. June 2016. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, volume 371, issue 1696, epage 20150164.
Permalink: doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0164, paywall free.
Or, less scholarly:
It takes a lot of calories to power a human brain. Find out how cooking and gut microbes help us make the most of our food.
Humans are not defined by our capacity for violence.
Current archeological evidence suggests that humans are, if anything, defined by the hearthfire.
By cooking. By our ability to keep ourselves warm. By our ability to provide for ourselves and each other. By humanity's millennia-long quest to beat back the ravages of starvation and hunger.
By our millennia-long quest to make our lives, and the lives of those we love, more and more into something we can live
Also like do go ahead and ask an archaeologist/anthropologist. Ask them about the healed broken bones they've seen that is evidence of humans caring for one another since we became human. Ask them about the hearths they've found for humans to gather around, and the cookware they've seen crafted by human hands. Ask them about the small circle of bricks in front of hearths that confounded them until someone realized it was to keep chicken chicks in the house where children could play with them. Ask them about the tools of creation they've seen. Ask them about the musical instruments, and the artwork spanning back to when we lived in caves. Ask them about the children's footsteps, their play preserved in mud. Ask them about the clothing they've seen and the hands that stitched them or wove them.
Ask them how long ago we looked at wolves and saw friends. Ask them when we first tilled the soil and planted seeds so we could grow things on purpose. Ask them how long ago we began to travel simply to explore the world around us.
Ask them why they put their hands on the earth searching for history and spend hours digging through archives and talking to other humans about the past. Archaeologists and Anthropologists are like the #1 people to love humans so much they want to know everything about all of the humans across history, and IMO the questions you ask them are a bigger reflection of the person asking them than anything else.
btw it's so fucking stupid you can be anxious physically in your body even after you've decided mentally you don't care. I'm supposed to be in charge here
Our interest survey is open! Click here to share your thoughts.
Read below to learn more about the zine ⬇️
What is Gender in the Belfry?
Gender in the Belfry is a not-for-profit fanzine focusing on transgender, genderqueer, and gender non-conforming headcanons of the Batclan.
What does Transqueer mean?
Transqueer is an umbrella term referring the wide range of gender variance among people. This includes (but is not exclusive to): Transgender characters, Nonbinary identities, Gender Non-conforming characters, and genderqueer persons.
What does Batclan stand for?
The Batclan is shorthand for the vigilantes who operate within Gotham's networks. The 'Bat' part is in reference to the 'bats' who take up most of the attention, but is not inclusive to them. Rather we use it to capture the mythos regarding Gotham's vigilantes. The 'clan' part acknowledges the complex & varied interpersonal dynamics of Gotham's vigilante community without narrowing to just a small subset of characters.
Who is included?
Vigilantes who primarily, or have primarily, operated in Gotham. (Examples include: Barbara Gordon, Cassandra Cain, Stephanie Brown, Harper Row (Bluebird), Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Dick Grayson, & others.)
Where can I learn more?
You can learn more about our mods, Q&A, and timeline on our carrd right here!
For informations on applicator guidelines, a more detailed FAQ, and specs of the zine, please follow this link to our info doc.
We have formatted it for easy access, so click the ‘outline’ button at the top to skip to the section you are interested in.
I agree with all of this. But! I think it is also important to recognize that there are subgenres where it is significantly harder to find certain things, and it's actively unhelpful to readers to pretend that you can just find whatever type of book you want to read if you just know how to look for it, especially if you are sticking to trad publishing.
It is possible to find both sapphic SFF and M/M fantasy. It is significantly harder to find, say, aro urban fantasy. Or trans romantic suspense. Or intersex mystery.
A lot of the advice above only really works for trad published or popular books and for identities/subgenres/content that aren't too niche.
So here's some advice if the advice above isn't working for you (either because you can't find books with what you want or because the books you are finding don't end up being the vibe you want), from someone who reads a few hundred books a year:
Find websites or lists dedicated to the specific thing you are looking for. They will generally have more variety and will post you to examples that don't show up in regular rec lists. (ex: aro book recs, ace book recs, intersex #ownvoices database, sapphic books). Goodreads lists can (sometimes) also be your friend.
Get comfortable reading self-published and small press books. Trad publishing has its blind spots.
Check Reddit for recommendations
Start figuring out what it is specifically that you like and then start making your searches more specific. This can be subgenre (if you want urban fantasy, you're rarely going to find it just searching "fantasy"), tropes, plot devices, vibes, etc.
Look at the "readers also bought" on Goodreads/Amazon, similar books on Storygraph, etc. if you read a book you like. Even if you don't end up reading the one you click on, it can show you similar authors (similar to looking at the blurb on a cover), especially because far fewer books have blurbs now.
If you're a new writer and you're asking yourself "is this too personal, is this too much, will people think this is weird" that feeling is the exact location of your actual voice. The stuff that makes you want to close the laptop is the stuff nobody else could write. The safe version is always worse. Always. I have never once read something and thought "this would have been better if it was a little less honest." go further. It's always go further.
