Abby Spinach

Hello tumblr. I’m reviving my old blog from the dead with some of my PHM fanarts.

I love that when Bode gave you that blaster, Cal pointed out that it was not a Jedi weapon and that his Jedi master would have disapproved of it.

I love that when Denvik makes assumptions about Cal based on him being a Jedi, Cal pulls that blaster on him.

I love that Cal didn't kill Bode with his Jedi weapon.

I also love that Cal's Jedi weapon, his lightsaber, was his master's lightsaber, because his own was lost at the same time Cal's master was killed.

(And I love that when Saw Guerrera asks Cal which Jedi he took this lightsaber from, we do not know yet the circumstances under which it was given.)

I love this even more because this lightsaber was still broken at the start of the first game.

I love that Cal didn't fix his Jedi weapon until he was well on his quest to (presumably) restore the Jedi order.

I love that when the saber broke a second time, Cere gave Cal her (empty) lightsaber hilt to fix it.

(And I love that the weapon of Cere's original apprentice was so imbued with pain that Cal couldn't even hold it without a strong physical reaction.)

I love that Bode didn't have his own lightsaber with him when he revealed his true nature.

I love that he picked up the lightsaber of a Fallen Jedi instead.

In short: I love the weapons in this series and the journeys they go on. I love the statements they make. I love their breaking and fixing and the ways in which they are given.

I love their symmetry.

I love their poetry.

Oh no my dear, the Armand described as Verrocchio's David?

The Armand that looks like a Botticelli Painting?

St Sebastian Armand?

Oh no I think he's perfection.

I received a free copy from Harper Voyager via Netgalley in exchange for a fair review. Release date September 8th, 2026.

I liked Kaner's Godkiller series but fell off after book 2, so I was excited to see what she'd do with her new sapphic fantasy series. In A Snake Among Swans, Tilde is an heir to a conquered kingdom who trades herself away in marriage for a chance at revenge. As queen, she endures the attentions of the cruel king and quietly manipulates the court, but her growing closeness to the king's daughter may threaten everything she has fought for.

A Snake Among Swans delicately threads the needle to avoid reverting to the mere physical obstacle of a kill them all revenge quest. The central point here is that Tilde's homeland is decades past the point of climactic last battles. Her people have intermarried with the invaders, the sacred groves have been chopped down, and their religion has been erased in favor of worship of the Wing. It's not the sort of problem that can be fixed by just killing that one guy, although murdering the king would instantly trigger a six-way civil war between his sons. Tilde is forced to plot and scheme and sacrifice rather than just stabbing someone, in a narrative arc that reminded me a bit of Baru Cormorant Lite. The court dueling is subtle, and Tilde handles it well despite coming from a very different culture. For instance, she quietly becomes a musician's patron to influence him into composing songs that favor her. All in all, the plot lands right on my favorite type of scheming.

The love interest (and effectively also the antagonist) Elise was one of the most sharply drawn characters in the book. I can see her so easily as a butch knight, given her strength and assurance, but she's been jammed into a very limiting model of femininity. She's forced to keep her mouth shut, and to lose to her brothers at archery. And the interesting part is that she really does believe in her faith and her father, even as they both abuse her. There are no easy outs here for either Elise or Tilde. Meanwhile, the king's erratic temper and increasing violence is genuinely scary. As his memory falters, there is no law in his court, only empty whim and impulsive violence. Overall, the primary appeal of this story is its characters. Although the worldbuilding is well-drawn enough to avoid the generic medievalisms, it's not a real standout for me.

The lack of gender and racial diversity in clinical trials has long been a matter of controversy. Traditionally, studies have been carried out in predominantly Caucasian countries, using mainly adult white males, especially for phase I clinical trials investigating tolerability, clinical pharmacology, dose‐related side effects and early evidence of efficacy 1. Historically, women of child‐bearing age have been discouraged from participation in phase I trials because of undue risk to fetal development, especially after the thalidomide scandal of the 1960s 2. This approach seems plausible and responsible in early clinical drug development, to avoid teratogenic effects in studies of compounds of which the vast majority will never reach the market anyway. However, public pressure has spurred detailed research on the participation of women in clinical drug trials, with an emphasis on later‐stage studies – i.e. phase II and III trials.

In an analysis of new drug applications (NDAs) submitted in the 1980s and 1990s, it was shown that women were under‐represented for analysis of some of these drugs 3. Subsequently, in 1993, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published the Guideline for the Study and Evaluation of Gender Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs 4. This guideline called for increased participation of females in clinical studies, and for gender‐specific analysis to discern in greater detail any gender difference in drug effect(s). In 2001, an updated analysis revealed that in 36 NDAs that were granted FDA market authorization, the proportion of female participants had increased 4, 5. In the latter US General Accounting Office report 5, across all the clinical trials, 52% of the study participants were women, 39% were men and 9% percent were not identified by gender. Meinert et al. performed a detailed analysis of the composition of study populations in reported clinical trials and argued that the idea that women were under‐represented in clinical trials was exaggerated 6. The analysis showed that in the period 1966–1975, a combination of male/female participants was present in 41% of trials, and this had increased to 55% over the period 1996–1998. A subsequent analysis comprised a review of all 724 clinical trials published in five major journals in 1985, 1990 and 1995. These trials were analysed for the numbers of female/male participants, and showed that the total percentage of female participants was 60%, and the percentage of women in mixed‐gender trials was approximately 40%. It can thus be concluded that women have been involved in the majority of clinical trials since the 1960s, even if the ratio has not been equal. Importantly, women‐only studies were over‐represented in cancer studies, even when excluding prostate and breast cancer 6.

Although this study showed that a large percentage of studies have been performed with a more or less equal mix of participants, the numbers of participants in these studies may not have been sufficient to result in enough power to discern any gender differences in outcomes accurately 6. This question was specifically addressed for NIH‐funded research 7. Analysis of these trials showed that mixed‐gender trials had an even mix of male (49%) and female (49%) participants.