a quilt dedicated to dappled sunlight in dappled sunlight

#extradirty

ellievsbear
taylor price

roma★
One Nice Bug Per Day

gracie abrams

Love Begins
Show & Tell
No title available

bliss lane
No title available
NASA
Noah Kahan

@theartofmadeline
No title available

izzy's playlists!

Andulka

shark vs the universe
Keni

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club
seen from Thailand

seen from Argentina
seen from Venezuela

seen from Brazil
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from Uruguay
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Thailand
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
@forthenerd
a quilt dedicated to dappled sunlight in dappled sunlight
Once you've learned the spot the historical signposts, it's interesting how many "generically medieval" fantasy settings manage to miss the actual medieval period on both ends. They've got the Roman Empire rubbing shoulders with the German Renaissance, skipping directly from the year 500 to the year 1500 with nothing in between!
(The one consistent exception is, of course, the obligatory Vikings-with-the-serial-numbers-filed-off culture, who legitimately are medieval, but nobody they interact with is, so you've effectively got Vikings with time-travelling boats raiding both Roman-occupied England and Renaissance Italy.)
"Oh, they skip the actual middle ages because it's too Christian" listen. If fantasy authors are willing to hold their noses and elide the explicitly Christian dimensions of both the latter Roman Empire and the fucking Reformation, they can deal with Christianity in the middle ages just fine.
@snuggly-eve
Okay, let me try to take a stab at it:
Firstly, one thing I'd want to quickly go over as reference is what it actually means to say that a "stock fantasy setting" is more rooted in the late middle ages/renaissance than in earlier periods. Generally, the traits of these settings that are characteristic of this time are:
Aesthetics generally. Like, castles in a "stock fantasy setting" are usually these big ornamented things covered in towers and turrets (consider, say, Neuschwanstein Castle, which was itself an early modern nostalgia piece rather than a genuine Renaissance fortress), while armor leans more towards full heavy plate (like these 16th-17th century pieces, for instance). These are all classically late styles.
Likewise, your classic fantasy merchant city -- you know, your Ankh-Morporks, your Lankhmars, that sort of thing, with tangled crime-filled alleys, probably a network of scummy canals, a huge bustling port, a guild of thieves, all of it ruled over by dynastic merchants in fine brocade and velvet and heavy jewels -- that's very heavily inspired by the merchant cities of the Italian Renaissance like Venice or Genoa, or North Sea merchant cities like Amsterdam around that time or a little later, or, frankly, even early modern London.
Also, generally, urbanization. Roman civilization was very urban. Renaissance-era European civilization was very urban also, especially in places like Italy, the North Sea, and other areas rich in commerce. In fantasy, too, the notion that cities are major centers of life and politics remains -- merchant cities bustling with commerce, capital cities with the king's fancy castle, fortified cities with huge bloody walls, these are all recurring archetypes. Crack open, say, a D&D setting sourcebook, and that assumption that major cities or city-states are major focuses of culture and economy while rural areas are clearly in their orbits is fairly evident, I think.
Also, in my experience, medieval fantasy monarchies tend to be fairly centralized affairs, with powerful monarchic kings, the royal seat in the capital or the king's castle as the bustling focus of governance, and a tendency for the edicts from the king's person and the intrigues of court to be the driving focuses of political life. Also, a lot of intrigues in a classically corrupt court. This tracks fairly well for the late period, historically, where European kings put a lot of effort into centralizing and strengthening their authority, some more successfully (the Iberian kingdoms at the end of the Reconquista), some less so (Charles I of England). Absolute monarchy was less of a factor in earlier medieval Europe, which operate chiefly under a network of looser, less centralized feudal ties.
By contrast, what would these things equivalents in the earlier Middle Ages be like?
Castle-wise, the really early periods were the time of the motte-and-bailey, aka wooden palisades on top of earthen mounds. Later, you'd tend to see squatter, more fortified constructions for defensive purposes (take the Krak des Chevaliers as an example). Even well into the later middle ages, though, a typical rural keep or castle was often a fortified house or manor more than what we'd picture as a castle today.
Armor was usually dominated by chainmail, scale armor, and non-face-covering helmets (a knight of the Carolongian Empire, for example, might have worn something like a scale or mail shirt and a helm with earguards or a noseguard, but certainly not the "classic" knightly set of plate you usually see in fiction). In terms of helmet styles, for instance, compare this 11th-century nasal helm or these illustrations of 12th-century styles with later forms such as the classic "bucket helm" that was popular during and after the Crusades period. Helmets with more articulated shapes and visors came later. What's called a close or closed helm, for instance, like these ones, was mostly a 16th-17th century style, although antecedent forms were already common in the 15th. Even the barbute with its distinctive T- or Y-shaped visor slit was a distinctly Renaissance Italian thing.
(Like, as a practical example in terms of helmets, this reminded me of a passage in the first Dunk & Egg story where Duncan buys a great helm/bucket helmet, and it's described as coming across as a goofy-looking and antiquated choice when other knights all use visored and often very ornate close helmets. And this makes sense! Westeros is very explicitly based on England during the Wars of the Roses period, in the 15th century, by which point medieval armor and helmet styles had gone out of use and most armored troops wore jointed plate armor and visored helms.)
Religiously, monasteries were often the center of religious life and, for rural communities, often more important than distant bishopric seats. They were also centers of, among other things, record-keeping, writing, and brewing.
Cities. The middle ages proper were a very rural time -- cities existed, and exerted political and economic influence, but took a significant dip in both size and importance for a time. For a good few centuries the center of life for most people was the manorial system, where you had a local knight or lordling living in a fortified house or a small keep and providing protection to a town or two around this in exchange for material support. Self-sustaining religious communities like monasteries were also important. All of these, for a long time, would have basically self-supporting.
(Well, alright, that's also an oversimplification. In rural France-England-Germany, that'd be about right, sure. In northern Italy and in Flanders-Saxony, though, you start to see... not urbanization as such, but, let's say, townization early on in the system of the medieval communes, where farming and trading towns left isolated by the collapse of Roman-era state systems formed confederations for mutual defense. So the main form of urban culture in this timeframe isn't really centralized around a single big city but more along the lines of fifty towns who formed a loose alliance because they're afraid of bandits and robber knights.)
Government. Centralized states and nations weren't... really things for a long time. Feudal governance was based much more strictly on the notion of personal debts and obligation between rulers and those who administered portions of land for them. A feudal noble had obligations towards his king, but he also had a tremendous amount of freedom in running his own affairs and could have gone for the majority of his life without every showing up in the vicinity of his lord's castle -- the idea of, like, the royal court as the focus and center of political life wouldn't really crystallize for some time, and this degree of independence meant that negotiation and re-negotiation (read:testing how much you could ignore the king or going into outright revolt) were very common.
Also, the notion of national identity -- of saying "I am French, I am English, I am Italian" -- also didn't really exist (I'd recommend Liah Greenfield's Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity for a discussion of how this mode of thinking about group-and-land identity formed in the 16th-17th centuries). Before then, concepts of identity were either strictly local ("I am from this village"), based on loyalty systems ("I am from a village defended by Knight Whatshisname, who gives his tithe to Lord Whatshisface, who gives his tithe to King Whatshisproblem"), or based on religion ("I am Christian", "I am Jewish", "I am Muslim").
So, broadly, there weren't really "countries" the way that we think of them today, with clearly delineated cultures and borders and directed from a central capital. The most granular political units were the rural manorial keep and the free town, which gave their fealty to a larger lord or a grouping of peers, and the span and size of a kingdom or an empire was determined in large part by how many of these tiny units or groupings of tiny units you could claim tithe-right and allegiance from. And that's feudalism!
Event-wise, the Big Things in the medieval period proper were the Crusades, a series of primarily religion-motivated wars (or, well, religion-land-and-luchre-motivated wars, granted) and the Black Death. It really cannot be overemphasized how the terror of being struck by this mysterious dying dominated medieval thought for large spans of time.
One book I read recently which I'd recommend for a having a good look at how medieval people thought and lived might be Michael Flynn's Eifelheim... with the caveat that it's also a science fiction novel about first contact with aliens, but the medieval side of things is really well-researched and -written.
I think very few authors actually set out to make medieval fantasy. They make a fantasy setting with historical things that seem cool for their setting to have and that seem like they can exist together in the same world. Then people CALL it medieval fantasy because it has knights and castles and kings and peasants and the authors shrug and say 'sure ok I guess people call that medieval fantasy' and list their work that way for people to find it as such.
It's taking a descriptor and assuming it's a goal, then judging the work by whether it met that goal.
It's not even really that unrealistic, considering some of the societies that have co-existed on earth.
idk man sometimes i like it when video game writers are allowed to plan a series of events that happen in a specific order and affect each other in turn to become an overarching narrative, and i don’t mind trusting those writers to take me through those events in the order that is emotionally effective. i don’t really care if a game forces me to go through the forest area first before i can attempt the icy area because maybe there’s things that happen in the forest area that inform later scenes in the icy area. maybe we don't need more superficial player choice open world concepts if it comes at the cost of the ability to write a story with actual significant plot events and character development in each section
Sleeping poorly is so embarrassing... sorry im grumpy I stayed up past my bedtime. Like a toddler
“word hashtag my word #myword” has done irreversible damage to my vocabulary
you are now a cat in the warrior cats universe! Spin these wheels for your name!
Do you like it?
YES!!!
yes
eh it's okay
no.
IM MOON MOON
results/other
note: I (the owner of this blog and maker of wheels) am not into warrior cats! I just thought this would be fun to make
(prefixes and suffixes from @yarrowleef)
I DON'T WANNA BE DEAD WOLF
I feel like kids would be less "loud/annoying/tantrum prone/whatever the complaint about them is this week" if they weren't forced to live in a world that doesn't treat them like human beings and constantly forced to obey the whims of other people with no consideration for their own thoughts and emotions. And if they weren't actively conscious of this. Blaming kids for occasionally breaking down over their treatment is like blaming women for yelling at their abusive husbands or crying about the sexism inherent in society. It's "the women's disease/hysteria" but directed at children instead of women.
Even if they have genuinely loving families that don't neglect them, which is rare, children are still put under constant abuse from every other aspect of their life. They're living on ultra-mega-hard-mode. Emotions are understandable.
I also completely understand people who can't be around loud children, or who hate it when a kid breaks down crying or screaming in a store or a restaurant. I hate it when a kid breaks down crying or screaming in a restaurant or store. Like, that's not an unreasonable feeling to have when someone is making an uncomfortable amount of noise. I get it. You don't want that kid to be crying or screaming any more than they want to be doing it.
These kids didn't ask to be forced to sit in a fancy restaurant in uncomfortable clothes around people they don't like eating disgusting food for hours. Those kids didn't ask to be hauled around a supermarket looking at things they're not allowed to have. That kid is crying because they're in a situation they don't want to be in, and they probably didn't have any say over how they got there. They've been forced into Situations for probably their entire lives, and sometimes they snap and have breakdowns. Breaking down after the level of constant psychological abuse inherent in modern childhood would be considered normal and understandable for any other age group, but when children do it it's considered irrational and bothersome and annoying. I get that empathy and compassion are hard, we're all suffering, but maybe for once try to have some instead of just writing the suffering of children off as too annoying to deal with.
"ban social media" BUILD COMMUNITY
When I was a new parent we had children's centres that had health visitors and nurses come and visit to answer questions and play groups and support and they were fantastic and were a massive help in getting me through the rough first few years and helped me be the kind of parent I wanted me to be
Most of them are closed now
We need investment in community outreach. Investment in groups that support marginalised communities and investment in infrastructure and third spaces where people (including kids and teens!) can meet and socialise
Invest in places where doctors and nurses can answer questions
Where social workers and volunteers are available.
Give education and services that support local communities and facilitate understanding
More importantly give people more safety nets so they don't feel so fucking desperate and stop hiding the safety nets we have!
Governments when presented with a social problem love to respond with "it is now illegal to have social problem"
Rather then address the actual issues or solve the actual source of the problems
They’ve got to stop trying to make Shakespeare masc. They’ve nearly driven the old theatre queen extinct. I’m not sure we’ve had a great one since Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi. We used to have dozens of them.
Theatre queen is a core archetype in our collective gender repertoire and its elimination from the public sphere is as great a loss as the decline of the monarch butterfly.
Tumblr Sexyman Contest 2026 Final Round
Senshi (Dungeon Meshi)
Ryland Grace (Project Hail Mary)
Mr. Ant Tenna (Deltarune)
Tenna art by @9Aaaalt29 on twt
Guys it’s only been 3-4 hours wtf
tumblr being real normal about this one
just came on here to celebrate the death of imperialist ghoul and baby murderer lindsey graham. time for oatmeal.
burn in hell you warmongering fuck
reading a historical romance novel and reflecting on the way these stories often present woke nobility for the contemporary reader. a big thing is servants. you can’t not have servants in those times but many modern readers think “but I would never have servants. it would be so weird to have servants” and in order to make the protagonists of the story more relatable they are actually friends with the servants. but flip your perspective and think of it from the side of the servants. wouldn’t it be so awful if your boss was always trying to be friends with you. a really common thing you’ll see is the woke baronet having tea in the kitchen with the servants bc he’s not like other baronets. but what if your boss wanted to hang out and talk during your lunch break every day. not so charming when you think about it that way
#okay but now what is the optimal way to be a good boss in this situation i genuinely wanna know#its easy to guess what makes a bad boss or a mid boss. but what is a good boss#specifically in such a highly structured hierarchal situation (via @rainbowroach)
HELLO you are asking questions that literature and poetry THROUGHOUT the middle ages has asked, and it is from this questioning that we derive things like the Codes of Chivalry (which is not "how to treat a noble lady really nice" but is actually "how to be an ethical person when you're rich and you own a horse" and includes such things as "don't run people over with your horse")
In fact I daresay you already know instinctively just from cultural osmosis what a good boss -- a good liege lord -- is and does based on the tropes that have survived to the current day and the kinds of things that get Hugely Praised in things like legends of King Arthur.
A good boss (liege lord) is:
Merciful. He is not having his peasants killed for things like poaching rabbits during a famine. In fact, he is working to mitigate famine. During times of individual hardship, he might negotiate with a peasant for a payment plan on their annual rent.
Patient. He is not impulsive, he does not lose his temper.
Prudent. He makes choices that are thoughtful, considered, conservative (in the sense of not needlessly risky--he's not investing his entire fortune in having everyone plant an unproven crop). He is making sure local infrastructure like roads and public buildings are maintained and kept in good nick.
Gentle. He doesn't haul off and slap a servant or a tenant for breaking a dish or making a mistake. He doesn't abuse animals, his wife or children, or his employees. He doesn't rape the servants.
Generous (both in money and in spirit). He is not extorting the peasants for an amount of rent that is beyond their means, he is not raising taxes every year to cover his own lavish lifestyle. He is paying his servants a living wage (or, if wages are low, he's giving them room/board/clothing to make up the difference). If someone in a tenant's family dies, the lord is sending a gift of condolence, or helping to pay for the funeral, or possibly even ATTENDING the funeral and speaking a few kind words about the deceased, ESPECIALLY if they were a really upstanding and important member of the community. If one of his tenants is gravely sick, the lord is sending a basket of food or paying for a doctor. He is giving charitably (generally this will be, like, a bequest to the church so that they can run a hospital or an orphanage or a school for the local village children).
Pious. This classically means "goes to church, submits with humility to God" but to me this quality is subtextually standing in for "maintaining an ongoing sense of Perspective that HE'S not god, that there are higher powers he is Accountable to, that he too can be Judged, etc, so that he doesn't end up going on a weird fucked up power trip"
Humble. One of the most admiring things you hear about a lord doing in literature and epic poetry is, "He ate off of wooden plates while his followers ate off of gold and silver." Humility isn't about being meek, it's just about not thinking so much of yourself that you turn your nose up and sneer at what "lesser" people do. In other words: Don't be a fucking diva. If your carriage gets stuck in the mud, climb out and help everybody else push, you're not gonna die from getting mud on your shoes.
Condescending. This word has changed wildly in meaning/tone over the last couple centuries -- it's now a rude thing to do (because we've done away with legal social hierarchies, so someone acting like they're lowering themselves to your level IS insulting), but in older times, a high-ranking person "condescending" to a servant was worthy of praise and admiration: it means they were setting aside rank and privilege to speak to them with the easygoing, friendly respect and compassion they'd give a peer. This is things like... Treats those beneath him with courtesy and respect (ie: listens soberly and attentively when one of his servants or tenants comes to complain about a problem). Having a sense of humor and kindness about it when the lord and a servant both come around a corner at the same time and run into each other and the servant gets knocked to the ground and starts babbling apologies--the condescending (positive) lord helps them to their feet with his own hands and cracks a joke to show them that it's ok (as opposed to just walking off without a word or insulting/scolding them). This is also things like trusting a farmer, woodcutter, or artisan to speak with expertise about their own livelihood and taking their advice into consideration if they tell the lord that one of his ideas won't work.
Good boundaries. The ethical liege lord knows that it's normal for the staff to probably be softly bitching about him in private (even with a really good boss, we all grumble from time to time). He's not eavesdropping on them, he's not going into the staff areas where they should reasonably expect to have a degree of privacy, etc.
Righteous and protective of "the weak". The "weak" here doesn't necessarily mean physically weak, this is often used in the sense of someone politically or socially weak, aka The Marginalized -- the poor, the disabled, women, children, the elderly, etc. If a lord sees someone like this being mistreated or abused, he's supposed to step in and put a stop to that.
Committed to reciprocity. In a highly hierarchical system like feudalism, every person (from the lowest peasant all the way up to the crown prince) legally OWES their liege lord certain things (taxes, labor, service, loyalty, etc). A good liege remembers and takes very seriously the idea that this should be a balanced and reciprocal relationship -- in other words, he owes something BACK. Feudalism is modeled very strongly on the family system: If children owe their parents obedience and service, then parents owe their children care and protection. This still applies when the "child" is a farmer and the "parent" is a local baron. Or when the "child" is a duke and the "parent" is the king.
Basically, we get so caught up in the aesthetics of nobility that we forget that it literally is a managerial position that comes with responsibilities that were... very similar back in the day to the same ones we have now. Humans have not changed all that much. At the end of the day, a really good boss in the 1400s versus in one from the 2020s displays most of the same qualities of personality, even if the details of execution are different.
The next question is, of course, "well, but this theoretical liege lord is HIGHLY idealized -- how often did that actually HAPPEN? Wasn't it more likely that everyone was exploited all the time?" and to that I say: Well, maybe. But again, I don't think humans have changed all that much. Just like the bosses of today, there's a SPECTRUM: A really really good boss is rare and precious and one that you tell stories about for years after you've left that job, but a truly, genuinely, homicidally nightmarish boss is also pretty rare. Most bosses are sort of meh -- they have their good moments, they have their shitty moments, but they're tolerable and you can get along with them well enough to do your job, and then you roll your eyes at them behind their back. Generally, humans don't take outright exploitation lying down. Being a bad boss in the historical period is how you get peasant uprisings and revolts, and you know that to be true because your parents raised you with that knowledge, so unless you are very stupid or inbred or an egomaniac, there is literal personal incentive to at minimum be a Tolerable liege lord. And that means hitting at least SOME of the above bullet points.
TL;DR: In the words of Honore de Balzac, "Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!"
(for more discussions of the ethics of fealty and what it means to be a good boss when you are an exquisitely beautiful twink of a prince with a hot beefy bodyguard.... [fingerguns] read A Taste of Gold and Iron)
we really should be calling it fanworks, not content
I'm here for fun and community not to rp a mega corporation's underpaid social media intern
before my egg cracked, i had noticed that trans people were often pro-accessibility and up-to-date on the needs of disabled people, but i hadn’t seen any inherent connection between the two (other than the obvious minority-looking-out-for-other-minority thing). but now that i’m trans and medically transitioning, and i have to constantly repeat myself while talking to doctors and nurses, and explain things about my own anatomy to medical staff who should already know this, and having every single problem i might have blamed on my “condition” so nothing i say is taken seriously, all of the sudden i have a little sneak peak into the life of someone who has to deal with this all the time. like shit bro, being disabled probably sucks ass, someone should do something about this
happy disability pride month, we all deserve autonomy and respect and access to medication
Me making food for myself: Why must I be subjected to the torture of maintaining this mortal flesh. When will I be free of the trials of Sisyphean mundanity.
Me making food for someone else: yay! yippee! woo! yeah! hurray! yahoo! hurrah! yeehaw! woo!
"Pride month is over"
WRONG! Your pride month is over! Me and all the other disabled queers are having pride month two: disability edition
Reblogging this again bc people in the notes are asking a lot of "Am I included? Am I disabled if I have x?" and I just wanted to add the flag here to show people who the pride month is for.
This is the new flag, the old one was more vivid and in a z shape, but it's been made more neutral to be inclusive of people with seizures or sensory issues.
Each stripe represents a different aspect of disability:
Red: Physical disabilities
Yellow: Cognitive & intellectual disabilities
White: (And this is the key one I think) Invisible AND undiagnosed disabilities
Blue: Mental illnesses
Green: Sensory disabilities
If you're autistic or have ADHD? this is your pride month. If you have a mental illness, it's your pride month. If you're hard of hearing, this is your pride month. If you have an autoimmune disorder, this is your pride month. If you are not diagnosed with anything but you know something is up with you: THIS IS STILL YOUR PRIDE MONTH.
I hate that when you’re stressed enough your body just starts falling apart. I think it should realize you’re already stressed and don’t need that and start functioning better actually