TamaCat

When you communicate digitally you don't have to worry about finding the natural rhythm of the conversation, you're not taking away someone else's ability to finish their thought or make their point if you send a message to them while they're still typing. I'm not here to scare monger about the kids and their phones, but it's important that you don't let your skill of finding a conversational rhythm, if you have that skill, atrophy, lest you speak over someone and take away their ability to complete their thought and make their point.

But I also realize that it's really important to specify what I mean by interrupting someone.

When someone says that interrupting is really normal and not considered rude in their community or culture, what they're actually talking about is what's known in linguistics as "cooperative overlap", that or simultaneous talking. Here's an example of cooperative overlap and/or simultaneous talking that you might see in a culture where this is normal and acceptable:

Person A: So guess where I went today? I went to the -

Person B: Oh let me take a wild guess! You went to the shoe store again didn't you?

Person A: That's right, and I got a -

Person C: Oh come on, don't tell you got another pair!

Person A: You know it baby!

Now let's compare that to a different style of interruption, what I like to call "steamrolling"

Person A: So guess where I went today? I went to the -

Person B: UGH did you guys catch the game last night?

Person C: Yeah the refs sucked!

Now, what differences can you see between the first example, aka "cooperative overlapping" vs the second "steamrolling" example?

For one, in the first example Person A is still allowed to make their point, tell their story, and finish their thought. They're not being silenced or completely derailed, and most importantly their conversation partners still seem interested and engaged in what they have to say. In the second example, Person A is being completely derailed and stripped of their chance to finish their thought and make their point, which is unfair to Person A, which is what makes "steamrolling" disrespectful even in many cultures and communities where "cooperative overlapping" would be acceptable.

Now, conversational overlap isn't for everyone, and that's okay, but it makes it awkward and tricky when someone from a community or culture that uses conversational overlap talks to someone who is from a culture that doesn't. For example:

Person A: So the other day I went to -

Person B: Oh my god did you go to that one store?

Person A: Um, no, I went to the movies, and I saw -

Person B: OH did you see that new creepy movie about the aliens?

Person A: No, can I please just finish my story?

Person B: Oh, uh, sorry

Neither person will probably feel great after this conversation. And I'm not here to condemn either conversational styles. I understand why some people see cooperative overlap as a more engaging and exciting conversational style, but I also understand why some people find it frustrating. My mother's family has a cultural background big on conversational overlap, but my father's side of the family ehhh not so much, so I personally grew up seeing these two conversational styles clash a lot.

If you're person A in the above conversation who doesn't like conversational overlap, that's totally fine, I'm personally not a big fan of it either only because I have a terrible memory, so when someone disrupts my flow I usually end up completely forgetting what I want to say. Just try to recognize the difference between cooperative overlap vs steamrolling. If someone is just trying to cooperatively overlap with you, patiently and politely tell them something along the lines of "sorry I have a terrible memory so if I don't finish I'll forget what I'm trying to say". But it's generally a good idea to be more patient and understanding with conversational overlap than steamrolling.

If you're someone who cooperatively overlaps and you encounter someone who isn't a fan of it, try not to take it personally, maybe like me they have a horrible memory and will forget what they're trying to say if they get side tracked.

But what I meant earlier about conversational rhythm is that too often a lot of interrupting comes from not realizing the other person wasn't finished speaking.

For example, personal A wants to say "so the other day I went hiking, and I saw a fox" some people might not recognize when person A is actually finished speaking, typically they assume as soon as they've heard a complete clause that means the thought is finished, so the conversation goes like

Person A: So the other day I went hiking -

Person B: OH I went hiking a few weeks ago with my girlfriend but it was so slippery out!

Person C: Oh how is your girlfriend doing by the way?

Person B: She's doing great! How's your partner doing?

Do you see how this style of interruption, unlike cooperative overlap, also derails Person A and deprives Person A of a chance to finish what they want to say? It's not quite steamrolling, and often just comes from a lack of rhythm or understanding. As a general rule, if you want to avoid interrupting someone, pause for a few seconds after you think they're finished in case they aren't actually finished. This way you avoid accidentally depriving someone of the chance to finish what they want to say and completing their thought.

We should never be too eager to assume someone has finished making their point because you never know what someone might actually be trying to say, and if you cut someone off before they make their point you can miss important context. For example:

Person A: I don't think I see stray cats here -

Person B: AHA BULL FUCKING SHIT! I totally saw a stray cat the other day!

Person A: I was going to say as much as in other places if you had let me finish?

Or:

Person A: I hate when it's hot out. When I was a kid it was usually around 25 or 30 degrees Celsius in the summers -

Person B: OH come one don't be such a wimpy little baby! 25-30 degrees isn't even that warm! I've totally seen WAY hotter summers than that!

Person A: Uh, that's what I was going to say if you'd let me finish, the summers were pretty mild when I was a kid, but they're a lot hotter now . .

Do you see how in both conversations Person B was too eager to assume Person A had finished making their point and ended up missing important context? If person B had only paused and waited for Person A to finish making their point, they wouldn't have ended up making an ass of themselves to put it frankly. This style of interruption can make you come across as eager to dominate and "one up" other people, which frankly a lot of people find obnoxious and exhausting. This is different than cooperative overlapping because it comes from a place of wanting to correct or one-up your conversation partner, rather than play and/or build into what they're saying, which is why I'd argue it's closer to steamrolling.

Good conversational rhythm ideally means everyone is allowed to finish their thought and make their point, whether or not that includes overlapping or even simultaneous talking. If you're not sure someone has finished their thought, pause a few seconds to make sure they've had the chance to complete their thought, less you miss important context. OR, if you do interject, it should be about building/playing into what they're saying rather than derailing/steamrolling them.

and I forget what I was thinking about but SUDDENLY brain goes 'hey what if another bobbin?'

and at first I was like 'pfft, no, that wouldn't work' but then I thought about it a bit more and

CHAIN PLIED 4 PLY YARN

CHAIN PLIED SELF STRIPING YARN

lessons learned so far:

doing this directly on the wheel is a nightmare task (and probably would get you more variegation than self striping)

if you're going to do a chain ply ball from across the room don't be lazy and just use the lazy kate pins

all done! about 206 yds and 154 grams

notes:

there's both yarn that i did with shorter stripes (chain ply ball from across the room) and longer stripes (chain ply ball from the kitchen table, through the kitchen and into the hallway beyond). the second one is with a measurement that i got from a ball of self striping yarn in my stash

personally i find it interesting how with normal chain plying there's less color mixing with short loops and more mixing with longer loops, but with the nature of using two solid/tonal singles in different colors it's the opposite

the knit swatch uses both yarn from the end of the long stripe skein (bottom) and from that early attempt at chain plying directly at the wheel (top, but there's not much)

part of autism is just being incredibly stressed. overstimulation? stress. holding a conversation? stress. something happening to our schedule? stress. people talk about how often autism is recognized and diagnosed via our stress responses (like meltdowns) because it is just so common to see autistic people stressed because of lack of accommodations to how our brains work.

like. loud noises physically hurt. it’s like a static shock from my ears to my spine that doesn’t stop until the volume goes back down. i thought we all agreed that ‘that’s too loud!’ and covering our ears meant ‘ouch!’. turns out i’ve been dealing with a stressor almost no one else has, my whole life, alone.

Carolina Milanesi, an independent technology analyst, said Google is trying to make its cash cow business — search — richer and more personalized, and it will make shopping easier. But there is a risk that users may have fewer choices about what to click. "Right now it's: I ask a question, I get a bunch of answers and I feel that I'm in control as to which answer I take, or if I'm looking for something, which product I'm going to end up buying. That is going to be less so going forward," she said. Milanesi envisions AI-enabled search and agents proposing products to consumers — perhaps even those they have requested — but with less clarity or choice around where it's coming from. "If you're going to say: 'I want a pair of Jordans, go find them,' you're not necessarily sure what steps have been taken and whether the AI has used a source or a store that was paid for and therefore came up in the search results," she said, "or if AI actually went and did their due diligence and picked the best for me as a customer."

And here's one from Time magazine (May 20, 2026):

While Google already has “AI Mode,” the company will now power the whole search bar through its new Gemini 3.5 Flash model.  Instead of the classic list of blue links, Google Search will now also generate a custom page with an AI-generated summary of what you’re searching about, which will then trigger a conversation with AI Mode on the main page, allowing users to ask follow-up questions—similar to the kind of layout you would see when opening ChatGPT.

And a little more from Time's article on how this may affect the websites that we are trying to search for:

There are so many reasons a person may choose not to come out and there is no reason a person would owe the public or a stranger that information. Certainly it's not owed simply because someone is famous.

(Disclaimer that I am not a fashion historian before I share my thoughts! But I have done quite a lot of reading into the era and these are my observations, feel free to chip in with your own!)

Compare the costume of Elizabeth (L) to Jane (R). The coat in particular is very masculine, especially since it has lapels. I struggle to believe that such a garment would ever be worn by a Regency lady:

Furthermore, Elizabeth is wearing something beneath her dress which almost appears to be a men's shirt with a collar? Though ladies would wear dresses with revealing necklines, in this era, dresses with:

'lower necklines [were] filled in with a fichu, scarf, lace, or chemisette.'

(via this article with more details about Regency morning dress)

All of the aforementioned are made of much daintier, lighter materials and even a chemisette (which could have a collar as this article demonstrates) has a rather different look than the piece of material that is peeking up from beneath Elizabeth's dress.

Fashion rant over, now I want to return to the text to demonstrate why any sort of tomboyish depiction of Elizabeth Bennet is not supported in the original novel.

Firstly, Elizabeth is repeatedly shown to engage in feminine pursuits. In fact, at the beginning of Chapter 2, shortly before her very first line of dialogue, she is described thus:

'Observing his second daughter employed in trimming a hat...'

Indeed, as I have previously discussed here, throughout the novel Elizabeth is repeatedly shown to be engaged in sewing, just like all other young girls of her age and class. We can therefore deduce that this activity is most likely one of her favourite ways of passing the time, rather than reading books (despite what fanon may portray).

Elizabeth also plays piano, and though she admits that her playing does not have 'the same force or rapidity' as other women's in Chapter 31, it is because she has not practised enough at that particular pursuit as she enjoys a variety of activities; she is sociable, enjoys walking and sewing, as I have previously established. Her lack of perfect technical application at the piano shows that she is not like Mary and is a far-more well rounded individual (which is a key lesson in the novel!). Even despite her lack of practice, Elizabeth's playing is good enough to be acceptable in company, which shows she must have some natural aptitude and affection for playing.

However, I think the primary scene which leads people to conclude that Elizabeth Bennet must be a tomboy is because she walks to Netherfield to visit Jane. Which conveniently ignores the fact that we are explicitly told in Chapter 7 that walking was her only option:

'Elizabeth, feeling really anxious, was determined to go to her, though the carriage was not to be had; and as she was no horsewoman, walking was her only alternative.'

It is obvious that Elizabeth would rather walk than ride on horseback because she does not enjoy it, which does not seem especially tomboyish to me. You would think any boisterous young woman who is desperate to get away from ladylike pursuits would always be out riding a horse? But that is not the case. If anything, this part of the novel shows to us the depth of Elizabeth's affection for her sister Jane. That she would risk impropriety and walking through mud to visit her sick sister is testament to how little Elizabeth cares how she is perceived vs the love she has for her family.

Ultimately, although Elizabeth resembles her father in terms of her wittiness more than any of her other sisters, that shared trait does not a tomboy make (women can be funny and feminine!) she is repeatedly shown to enjoy activities typical of her gender and class.

Elizabeth Bennet is timeless and relatable for so many reasons and her femininity does not need to be diminished in order to make that more obvious to modern audiences. I really hope that the Netflix series does not go down that route for her character because I think that it would be a tremendous shame.

firstly, that the people who tell us that Lizzy walking to go to Jane is not in keeping with femininity etc etc etc are the Bingley sisters, people who are absolutely desperate to see themselves as so much better than the Bennets at every opportunity and whom we know not to trust on such matters.

and it’s not even the walking they actually take issue with. it’s the fact that the walking has left Lizzy looking ‘almost wild’ with her petticoat ‘six inches deep in mud, I am absolutely certain’! it’s not a rejection of feminine ideals, but rather the impropriety of having dirty undergarments on show.

I also think this is likely a commentary on the Bingley sisters thinking this arguably superficial thing is more important, while Lizzy is focused on seeing her ill sister. (while Lizzy is not a tomboy, one thing I would argue she is is practical. see also ‘why must she be scampering about the country, because her sister had a cold’.)

they even confirm to us that walking is a respectable feminine pursuit, by sarcastically saying that Lizzy’s ‘being an excellent walker’ recommends her.

on the costuming thing, I am not an expert (I am currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree in history) but I do have a long-standing autistic special interest in the history of fashion, generally focused on western Europe, which gives me a good base knowledge in the paintings and extant items which are out there.

one of the big things that stands out to me about that screenshot is that in Hollie Avery’s Kitty we are finally getting someone larger in regency outfits! empire-line gowns work so well on rounder bodies and I’m very glad to see it.

about the men’s shirt under the dress, I did some research and found a few pictures of it being done. these are much more robust-looking than your standard lacy fichu or camisette.

Caroline of Brunswick, 1798:

dress worn by Charlotte (daughter of the regent himself) in 1817 (styled later by a museum with a presumably roughly contemporary chemisette thing):

Robertine Tourteau in 1790:

there is also another portrait I can see very clearly in my mind depicting this exact style of shirt-like chemisette underneath a very high-waisted brown dress, but I cannot for the life of me find it. just trust me!

my understanding is that it was done, but not super commonly. I had to look quite hard to find these pictures. it’s not a completely invented style, though, by any means. it’s just a case of how common it was to have an open, flat collar on your chemisette rather than a load of ruffles and what fabric it was made from.

what I did find is also mostly from the 1790s, a bit before their chosen 1812 for this adaptation, but I can live with that. not everyone is 100% up to date with fashions.

regarding Lizzy’s coat with lapel collars, what it immediately reminded me of was women’s riding outfits of the 1780s. in this time, there was a fashion of women wearing riding outfits very much based on male clothing.

an unnamed woman, 1785:

Mary Styleman, 1780 – 1783:

Anne Blair, 1785:

redingote dress, 1787:

it’s very plausible that Lizzy is reusing an old riding (or riding-style) outfit of her mother’s. I like this with my view of Lizzy as practical; a riding coat is tough, durable, a good choice for a walk. we’re also still very much in a pre-sewing-machine era here, so this reusing and repurposing of older items was really common, even among the richer portions of society.

screenshot from a video of Bernadette Banner’s where she talks about Gentleman Jack doing exactly this brilliantly:

so the lapel-style collar doesn’t bother me. what does jump out at me is (A) the very masculine cut of the sleeves and how they’re set into the shoulders, implying this is a man’s garment (and her father is basically the only man who’s an option there) that Lizzy’s borrowed — very unlikely to happen — and (B) the fact that it looks like it might not be big enough across the front to close. I’m not bothered by the lack of buttons — items in the eighteenth century were often pinned closed to best accommodate changes in body shape or size — but it looks like it could be kind of small, almost as if it were made to sit open, which it would not have been. the length though does work with this theory; compare particularly with the Mary Styleman picture.

but those are minor gripes. I’m enjoying the bonnets, and the lovely regency curly fringes on both Emma Corrin and Rhea Norwood (who I think is a fantastic casting for Lydia), and Mary’s ridiculous little cape and hat, and the printed fabric (so popular in the 1810s) on Mary’s dress, and even that dark red on Lizzy (darker colours were generally kept for evening wear, especially in the classical-obsessed regency era, but I can forgive it because it suits Lizzy’s headstrong nature in my opinion). I’d like to see Mrs Bennet in some slightly sillier fashion and layers of lace — she’s a married woman, after all, and also she’s Mrs Bennet — but this looks like it could be a thoroughly decent adaptation.

I wasn't familiar that a chemisette could be made of such thick material but I love it actually, that's exactly the thing I would have worn if I was around back then! I think the fact it would perhaps have been a couple of decades out of fashion is fine because the Bennets are not particularly wealthy and are perhaps a little out of the loop regarding the latest trends.

The cut of the coat and particularly the shoulders really stood out to me as quite a lot more masculine than I was used to seeing on a lady from this era and I think that is still my main issue with it, despite all of the wonderful examples you provided of ladies in similar coats with lapels! I suppose clothing wasn't as gendered as we might expect and there was some leeway with ladies incorporating some more 'masculine' elements in their dress.

I notice the wearing of outerwear the most. In a program set in Regency England, in outdoor scenes, a) you rarely see more than a Spencer jacket or a cape, and b) in a group scene the coverage varies wildly from lady to lady. As if I was out walking with friend wearing a tank top while I had on a turtleneck and fleece vest.

I get costumes tell a lot about the characters but wouldn’t a person look daft and either cold or hot and out of place?

This is not silly! This is actually a very good question! Regency media is often very much confused and inconsistent about what was appropriate in the given situation to wear, but to be fair, it was actually very confusing.

I have seen a lot of people, and I have repeated this before as well, perpetuate the idea that Regency Era had the same concept of casual and formal wear - split to morning, day and evening wear, where the earlier in the day it was the more the dress covered. However, the Regency concept of casual/formal wear followed much closer to the previous era of 18th century. Instead of morning, day and evening wear they had undress, half dress and full dress, which had a bit to do with how much was covered but not much. They were much less formalized than the equivalent concepts of the socially rigid Victorian Era. Which also makes it much more confusing. Undress was usually worn at home or during morning walks and it had long sleeves. Usually it was a pelisse or dressing gown, or could be a simple round gown. Though most garments were not inherently undress, half dress of full dress, since it was much more relevant simple or flashy the garment in question was. A simple redingote could also be undress for cold morning walks. Hair was often covered in undress as well, usually with a cap, but this wasn't necessary for young unmarried ladies. Full dress was basically ball gown - so the most formal dress, short sleeves etc. - and there fore easiest to grasp. Though sometimes other occasions besides balls were as formal and then full dress would be used as well, but not all evening occasions were as formal as balls. Half dress is basically everything else and easily the most confusing and unclear category. Half dress could have short sleeves or long sleeves, used outdoors or indoors, used for less formal evening occasions and promenade walks and visiting casually a close friend and picnic and so on. Basically half dress was anything more formal than the casual home wear and less formal than the fancy ball gown. It was a collection of several different types of gowns really, but the reason they were in the same category was that there was no hard rules on how they should be worn.

At some point I'll make a post on the Regency casual/formal wear etiquette where I go deeper into this.

What specifically sort of half dress someone wore had more to do with age, marital status and weather than the specific occasion (though that could still matter as well), since most garments could be styled in multiple different usages especially by combining them with different garments. Married women and older women were expected to use more covering clothing, while younger women and girls could use less coverage even on a more casual occasion. So for example on a summer outing an older married woman might wear a long sleeved round gown or a light pelisse, while their unmarried daughter might wear a short sleeved gown. But these were not hard rules either. It was sort of closer to how etiquette works today, much more vibe based than rule based. Here's couple of examples from art depicting different scenes, where women are wearing quite different sort of half dresses.

The first one here is from 1815-1820. I'm not sure what the setting is for this harp playing, since the women seem to be wearing outdoor clothing (all are wearing bonnets and one of them is wearing a redingote), maybe they are playing outside? Anyway, the two ladies have short sleeved gowns, one of them has open neckline, the other a chemisette covering her neckline, while the third has a covering redingote.

First image here is a painting named "A young person hesitating to play the piano in front of her family" from 1805. Here's a casual gathering among family on a terrace, perhaps after the dinner (the sun seems to be setting), where the young lady is dressed in short sleeved gown, while presumably her mother and grandmother are dressed on gowns with longer sleeves and covered hair. The second image here is painting of three teenagers preparing to play music on a casual musical evening from c. 1810. The girls are roughly the same age, yet one of them is wearing long sleeves and covered neckline, while the other is not, demonstrating how there was no exact rules with half dress.

The first image below is an illustration "In a cafe" from 1810. The ladies are out, two of them are wearing short sleeved and decollete revealing dresses, while their third (likely married) friend is wearing long sleeves and covered hair and decollete. The second image is an illustration from 1814, and depicts a casual gathering where young people are playing party games. Again there's a mix of long and short sleeves.

It's seed catalog time! One of my favorite times of year, honestly. While my garden mostly sleeps, full of dry leaves and fluffed-up birds and cold breezes, I'm indoors contemplating tomato varieties and telling myself that *this* will at last be the year I get the peas in on time.

As it is that appointed time, my usual yearly reminder: don't buy from Baker Creek!

Baker Creek are racist, fascist assholes! They intended to platform Cliven Bundy at their yearly conference, and Native seedkeepers have said that Baker Creek stole from them (and sell the product of that theft). They did a For Ukraine fundraiser that actually went to a far-right Ukrainian organization invested in obliterating LGBT rights.

Baker Creek might have some fun varieties of seed, but I can very nearly guarantee that if you see something there you want, I can find it or an analogue for you somewhere else.

Here's a selection of seed companies I personally have bought from, or people I trust have recommended; there will be a secondary and possibly tertiary reblog, since Tumblr only allows me to do ten links at once. If there's a company you've bought from and liked, please leave a review for them in the comments! What did you get, what did you like, how was the germination? Native Seed Companies: (please, please feel free to add more in comments to this post)

Companies Specializing in Native Pollinator Plants and Seed:

New to me last year, but HIGHLY RECOMMENDED seed preservation company (they have an incredible selection! My 2023 germination of their seed was like 98%! But they only accept paper order forms):

Cool weird nightshades, I got a bunch of dwarf tomato seeds from them last year and THEY didn't suffer from peppergate because they're a small company that does a lot of their own seed:

Want to try just a few of something? Seedsnow is *really cheap*.

I got my first real year of tomato seeds from Totally Tomatoes, and a full decade on I'm still getting germination from packets I bought that season:

HUGE selection of most every kind of bean you might want to grow: