breaking kayfabe for a moment to say that i was honestly really shocked by just how much people loved qin shi huang (<- words that have never been strung togather since, ever, I think). and i really have all of u people to thank for it. i had a lot of fun researching, coming up with skits, answering people's questions, and inventing increasingly convoluted reasons to execute people. it was a HUGE highlight of 2025, back when i was really, really, really slogging through the thesis and (predictably) didn't go outside much. so, thank you citizens for keeping me sane through those dark times, one petition at a time.
in terms of writing the jokes, i think i had some fairly big advantages when it came to ying zheng, especially compared to a more niche historical figure, like cao cao, or liu bang ;) qin shi huang already has a cartoonish personality, and he is well-known enough to western audiences that most people would get the jokes/references. (c'mon guys, i thought the Pissing On The Poor joke was HILARIOUS. guess you PEASANTS don't know enough about confucianism to fully appreciate it UnU).
@thismetallicbird you had your job cut out for you. han gaozu is not an easy persona to adopt, and it takes a WHOLE lot more legwork to establish the relevant background knowledge for a western audience to understand the references. not to mention, personality-wise, han gaozu is just a little bit too cool. too well-adjusted to get bogged down in internet slapfights. as the kids say; he touches grass. when you look at his historical achievements, a key part of his success is his ability to withdraw from a pointless conflict (heqin), and be receptive to different perspectives (the adoption of confucianism). how is a peasant suppose to #cancel him? I think you've done a great job with your research, maintaining a consistent voice, both for him and my #girlboss lĆ¼ zhi, while being funny with it. (i still burst out laughing when i see the Gay Emperor pinned post).
ying zheng on the other hand, is a maladjusted megalomanic with paper-thin skin and a short fuse. it takes very little to bait him, and even less to get him ranting. even when he wins an argument, he loses a whole lot more in dignity. (now, you may think it's unrealistic that the most wealthy and powerful man in the world would be up at 2am subtweeting @ joe_schmoe312 and working himself into a frenzy over imagined enemies and insults, but i have it on good authority that it's not altogether impossible!)
when i first started the blog, i had a half-formed goal in mind to make this somewhat educational, and i thought the first emperor of china would be a hilarious framing device through which to explore history. one of the cavates i set for myself is that ying zheng is not allowed to outright lie. he can be as deceitful and vainglorious as he wants, but the things he says must have an factual bias, however tenuous. this ended up having two benefits:
1) from a character standpoint, it creates an interesting line he refuses to cross, and it encourages people to actually dissect what he is saying, rather than disregard it wholecloth.
2) a historian is taught to be analytical and impartial; they must take a measured approach and weigh the relative merits and biases of their sources to get as close as possible to the truth. in a way, we are all historians because we are actively navigating history right now, separating fact from fiction, identifying when people are manipulating us, trying to sell us a story, ect ect. in order to do that, you need the right tools, and an important part of it is being able to evaluate sources. qin shi huang is not a man you can get a straightforward answer out of, he is extremely biased, often nefarious, and pushing an obvious agenda. although the agenda itself is 2000 years out of date, the rhetorical techniques he uses are evergreen, and sometimes, not all that exaggerated compared to what you see on the news. so, like a historian, you must take his biases into consideration and try to read between the lines to get to the heart of the matter. on my end, this was a fun writing exercise, because i had to reverse-engineer a bunch of facts to be as grotesquely biased as possible.
(my favourite bit was when he twisted liu bang's revolutionary awakening--his decision to rebel against the state and side with the prisoners he was guarding--into a hypocritical and cowardly act. A lot of people in the notes said qsh made a great point because liu bang only chose to rebel when it was his life being affected, and he was still perpetuating the same exploitative system (feudalism), while replacing it with an outwardly benevolent face.
i really liked the rhetorical technique being used here, because it mimics a type of bad-faith argument i see a lot, where the consistency and moral purity of a person is attacked, but their actions are ignored. qsh reframes the argument so the issue is no longer about his brutality, but liu bang's perceived hypocrisy āI was a ruthless but consistent ruler! you're just a cowardly turncoat!ā qsh juxtaposes his own ideological purity with the inconsistent beliefs of liu bang, reframing the latter's moral growth as "selfish" and āmanipulativeā. never mind that when you actually dissect that argument, qsh's rock-solid belief is āthe lives of commoners are expendableā and liu bangās is āme and the other peasants are being treated unfairly. i think we should try to improve things somewhat.ā)
discoholicmusic
jacobvanloon
baratheonpilled
janainaart
blakekathryn
