Faraday C. Age

I didn't realize it until recently, but I've always seen love as something requiring sacrifice, selflessness, patience, and generosity- to ask for nothing is to be the best person I can be, small and quiet and never in the way, always happy and helpful, self-sufficient and present when desired.

It's only as an adult, now, that I'm beginning to see the selfishness of wanting nothing.

I cut my friend's hair in my kitchen the other day. They wanted a trim and I had the skills, so I offered, and was genuinely excited when they stopped hesitating over "bothering me" and took me up on it. It was a peaceful afternoon, and we had tea and chatted for an hour or more.

My brother and I shared popcorn at the movies a while ago. When I came time to pay, I pulled my card out like a wild western sheriff and slapped it on the machine before he could fight me for it first. The satisfaction was delightful.

Someone called me crying on the phone the other day. Kept apologizing for disturbing me at work, talking about how they were bothering me on my lunch break. I was telling the truth when I told them that really, I was flattered and honored and relieved, knowing that if they were hurting I would know, that I didn't have to worry in silence. It felt good to hear them slowly come down, and to know that they knew it would be better soon, and to hear them laugh wetly on the other end. We're getting together for a visit next week.

It's hard to need things, if you've trained yourself not to. It's hard to want things, when you don't know how to want anymore. Trusting people is difficult, and so is relying on them, but I don't know where I'd be without the people who rely on me.

I've heard a lot of people say, "Nobody will love you unless you love yourself". I've had a lot of thoughts about it. It's not right, but it's not wrong, either, I think.

"Nobody will love you unless you love yourself"... I've always taken that to mean, "You will not be lovable until you develop a positive view of yourself as a person".

Now, I think it's sort of inside-out.

"Nobody will love you unless you love yourself"... because nobody can show their love to you in a way that you can accept until you treat yourself kindly, and learn what you need, and what you want, and how to ask for it, and then give that vulnerability away.

Love, for me, is someone I ask for a ride to the airport. Whether they end up doing this or not is irrelevant.

Then they don’t control you anymore.

"The Yurok will be the first Tribal nation to co-manage land with the National Park Service under a historic memorandum of understanding signed on Tuesday [March 19, 2024] by the tribe, Redwood national and state parks, and the non-profit Save the Redwoods League, according to news reports.

The Yurok tribe has seen a wave of successes in recent years, successfully campaigning for the removal of a series of dams on the Klamath River, where salmon once ran up to their territory, and with the signing of a new memorandum of understanding, the Yurok are set to reclaim more of what was theirs.

Save the Redwoods League bought a property containing these remarkable trees in 2013, and began working with the tribe to restore it, planting 50,000 native plants in the process. The location was within lands the Yurok once owned but were taken during the Gold Rush period.

Centuries passed, and by the time it was purchased it had been used as a lumber operation for 50 years, and the nearby Prairie Creek where the Yurok once harvested salmon had been buried.

Currently located on the fringe of Redwoods National and State Parks which receive over 1 million visitors every year and is a UNESCO Natural Heritage Site, the property has been renamed ‘O Rew, a Yurok word for the area.

“Today we acknowledge and celebrate the opportunity to return Indigenous guardianship to ‘O Rew and reimagine how millions of visitors from around the world experience the redwoods,” said Sam Hodder, president and CEO of Save the Redwoods League.

Having restored Prarie Creek and filled it with chinook and coho salmon, red-legged frogs, northwestern salamanders, waterfowl, and other species, the tribe has said they will build a traditional village site to showcase their culture, including redwood-plank huts, a sweat house, and a museum to contain many of the tribal artifacts they’ve recovered from museum collections.

Believing the giant trees sacred, they only use fallen trees to build their lodges.

“As the original stewards of this land, we look forward to working together with the Redwood national and state parks to manage it,” said Rosie Clayburn, the tribe’s cultural resources director.

It will add an additional mile of trails to the park system, and connect them with popular redwood groves as well as new interactive exhibits.

“This is a first-of-its-kind arrangement, where Tribal land is co-stewarded with a national park as its gateway to millions of visitors. This action will deepen the relationship between Tribes and the National Park Service,” said Redwoods National Park Superintendent Steve Mietz, adding that it would “heal the land while healing the relationships among all the people who inhabit this magnificent forest.”"

there is one facet of fantasy worldbuilding that is, to me, the most interesting and essential but i don't see it come up in worldbuilding guides or writing prompts or anything, and that is the question of:

what do the inhabitants of your world believe about how the world works, and how are they wrong? a lot of fantasy media will set up their cosmology, gods, magic systems, planar systems, concepts of the afterlife, &c., and proceed as though the inhabitants of the world know and understand them.

from someone whose entire academic career is focused on studying human culture in various regions and time periods, with a focus on belief systems (religion, occultism, mythology, folklore): that sort of worldbuilding is unrealistic and missing out on so much fun.

people are always seeking new understanding about how the world works, and they are mostly wrong. how many models of the solar system were proposed before we reached our current one? look at the long, turbulent history of medicine and our various bizarre models for understanding the human body and how to fix it. so many religions and occult/magical traditions arise from people disagreeing with or adapting various models of the world based on new ideas, methods, technologies. many of them are wrong, but all of them are interesting and reflect a lot about the culture, beliefs, values, and fears of the people creating/practising them.

there is so much more to the story of what people believe about the world than just what is true.

to be clear: i think it's fine and important for the author to have a coherent explanation for where magic comes from or who the gods are, so they can maintain consistency in their story. but they should also be asking what people in the world (especially different people, in different regions/nations and different times) think is happening when they do magic, or say a prayer, or practise medicine, or grieve their dead. it is a rich vein for conflict between individuals and nations alike when two models of the world disagree. it is fascinating how different magic systems might develop according to different underlying beliefs.

personally, i think it is the most fun to spawn many diverse models of the world, but give none of them the 'right' answer.

*suddenly the cat Yearns*

Fursona = animagus

Palisman = patronus

I know for a fact that, if I had a fursona, it would not be the same as my palisman. One is a representation of self and one protects the self or serves some other, inner purpose. But I guess in the HP universe, the patronus kinda does both and maybe the animagus form does too. We never learn too much about how animagi work or how they get their form. Is it a conscious choice or is the form inevitable, something you unlock within yourself through deep soul searching?

I would think many people are multifaceted enough to have different symbols for those two things, the self and the protector of self, although some people (like James) may have such a strong, singular character trait that the two overlap.

Now, to go against my previous theory, we know a lot of the time a patronus matches a person to whom you feel romantically connected.

(James has a stag 🦌and Lily has a doe, Snape also has a doe🦌, Tonks's changes to be a wolf because of Remus 🐺, Hermione has an otter (which is a type of weasel) 🦦 and Ron has a breed of dog that hunts otters)

And, to be honest, I don't think that if Snape were to choose to go through the whole becoming an animagus process, that he would end up a doe. Most of all, because does are the female of the animal and I'm not sure if it makes sense for an animagus transformation to also change your sex.

Let's face it, if Snape was an animagus, he'd be a bat 🦇 not a doe 🦌. He literally looks like a bat, the book describes him like that all the time.

So yes, I can understand where you are coming from. That maybe animagus forms represent your personality/identity while patronus represent something that can bring you safety and light. And that's why they match with a loved one a lot (Harry's patronus also matches James exactly because of this, because the memory of his father made him feel safe).

But yes I do like to believe both forms can change as the person changes their personality/identity or as they find something or someone new that makes them feel safe and loved.

I suppose James is one of those people who is very set on who he is and doesn't has a very established identity. The only changes we know him to have gone through is he went from a bully to less rude, the rest of his personality must have remained the same.

Re: Snape not being a doe, I don’t think gender would necessarily preclude someone from having a patronus that is a different gender from theirs, esp if the witch or wizard is trans, NB, or gender-fluid. In fact the patronus may be a more accurate representation of the self and could even show the person’s true gender before they fully figure out that part of their identity for themselves. Do I think that’s the case with Snape? Definitely not, but it’s another interesting aspect of patronus/animagus theory.

Re: patronus matching a loved one because that person makes you feel safe, I had forgotten that detail but it makes so much sense if, as we’re suggesting here, the patronus serves a specific purpose related to safety. Mine would probably be a badger in that case!

I hadn’t previously read about chosen or mythical patronus forms being more powerful. I need to think more about whether it makes sense. Within the context of the books, it seems to—dumbledore is both wise and powerful. In the context of a real person’s “patronus/palisman/spirit guide” (whatever you like to call it), I would almost expect the opposite.

Like I have several favorite animals and when I discovered my “palisman,” it wasn’t any of them. If you had asked me to write a list of cool animals, I’m not sure how far I would’ve had to go down that list to even come up with a manta ray—yet that’s what I found when I went looking. I had to stop trying to impose something I liked and just listen to what my inner self was trying to tell me.

The answer being unexpected made it more powerful, in my case. Power is only partly about the effect you can have on the world around you. A key aspect of true power is humility and listening. Then when you act, you’ll bring that combination of truth and power to bear. You’ll be unshakeable.

Witches normally carve their own palismen!

Luz and company (we don't know where Amity got Ghost from so let's leave her out of this) are the exception, not the rule. They're the odd ones that didn't get to choose their palismen, but the normal thing is for young witches to make the palisman themselves and I'm assuming choose their appearance?

Luz makes the very unique choice of carving an egg because she wants the palisman to form its own identity (and let's face it, because Luz herself is a very indecisive person). And then there's Hunter, Willow and Gus who all get hand me down palismen that originally belonged to other people, with whom they have to connect with first.

But Eda? Lilith? Presumably most adult witches? Hunter later when he makes Waffles? They all carve the palisman themselves or with help from someone who can carve. And presumably the fact that they carved their own palismen makes me think that they do get to choose which animal they want and it isn't just assigned to them in some magical way.

Idk what the criteria is. Idk if most witches choose their favorite animal or what.

Apparently birds are a Clawthorne family thing so maybe Clawthornes always choose birds but which bird they choose depends on something Idk

When I think about my palisman I always think they're either a cat or a peacock because those are my two favorite animals and I assume that in the Boiling Isles I get the chance to carve it myself and choose what it's going to be.

Meanwhile, when it comes to my patronus, the more I think about it, it's probably some sort of dog. Maybe a mixed breed. Dogs are nowhere near my favorite animal but they are very loyal creatures and I am a very loyal person. Dogs also remind me of my friends and family, most of my loved ones have or had dogs.

I guess the process is probably different for everyone! As you just said, not everybody carves their own, and perhaps that suits some people well. Maybe family is where they find their identity and sense of belonging (back to the patronus theme of safety), so it’s an honor to choose a palisman in a long lineage of (say) noble bird palismen. That is still a kind of choice. Maybe not as conscious of one but still a choice.

Adopting a palisman is a more conscious choice, and both parties have to make the choice together. Yet so much still comes down to a person’s identity and nature—how do you choose? What does “when you know, you know” feel like? It’s gonna be a mix of conscious choice and, just, vibes—whatever feels “meant to be.” Is that really more of a choice than inheriting one? Is it less?

And finally, carving your own: Maybe for a more assertive person than myself, this involves shaping your palisman actively, choosing what it will be and what it represents (as well as who YOU will be and what YOU will represent, using its power). Whereas I didn’t want to tell my palisman what to be; I let it come to me and reveal itself. That’s also a choice! And lo and behold, I got an animal that’s all about going with the flow. Funny how that worked out.

TLDR: All these methods are choices, even if they are unconscious choices. Choosing not to choose (like Luz did) is also a choice.

Animal familials and the nature thereof is always a very interesting topic for me.

And obviously I do not diminish the bonds the witch kids have with the hand me down palismen, which are unique to them and independent of the last owner. There's always room to love a new person, just because Flapjack chose Hunter doesn't mean he doesn't miss Caleb but it also doesn't mean he's trying to replace Caleb with a lookalike. It's a very complex "what do you do with a dog if their human dies" situation.

Luz makes me laugh? Honestly. Because when we were originally shown that Luz straight up carved an egg instead of a living creature, I...

I was that Hamilton meme. "I wasn't aware that was something a person could do."

Like I never considered that possibility. I straight up feared for a second that Luz had accidentally made a Humpty Dumpty palisman because palismen didn't work that way. Turns out I was wrong and the egg did hatch like she wanted but funny moment tbh.

Now on the topic of names.

Obviously the hand me down palismen have names already. Hunter asks Flapjack his name and he says it. And I assume Luz allowed Stringbean to name herself.

I was thinking about this conversation again because I had a moment last night where I perceived my inner self as sort of a pink leopard (think Kipo meets Lisa Frank). I immediately went “huh. I guess that’s my fursona. Must tell @haystarlight!”

The naming of palismen could really go either way. Maybe it’s part of the act of creation, and the creator gets to define/give life to its creation by naming it. But with palismen being sentient, I prefer to imagine it as an act of co-creation.

This isn’t a dumb stick that you wave around while shouting Latin incantations; it’s a living creature that you brought into the world. It has its own wants, needs, and identity. And it’s not like bringing a human infant into the world, where the baby doesn’t understand enough to participate in the co-creation of its identity yet. Of course the parents need to name their baby. It will be years before the child can think about their own identity in a meaningful way (at which time they may choose a different name!)

But palismen seem to be formed with all their faculties fully developed. Even if they grow and evolve with their human, their life begins at an age of reckoning, whereas humans must grow to such an age. Any creature capable of reckoning is entitled to reckon. I reckon.

After “Do not stand at my grave and weep”, author disputed:

Do not stand at your bowl and meow. I gave you food. It’s in there now. I feed you at the dawning light, I feed you at the fall of night. I feed you kibbles mixed with meat And wet food for a special treat. I feed you even though you scoff At all the food within your trough. I feed you and still yet you yell Like as a beast from deepest hell. Do not stand at your bowl and cry. I gave you food. You will not die.

Do not stand at my feet and cry It’s VEGETABLES, you silly guy! Your begging will not change the food Into a thing you think is good I’ll give you things not cheese or meat You sniff at them and then retreat And yet, as soon as chopping starts You run back in and beg for parts You squint your eyes at plant-based food And yet you won’t stop BEGGING, dude! Do not stand by the stove and bleat You don’t like this. You will not eat.

I had to join the fun! This one is dedicated to the Queen of Floof and her terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad yowl. Below is a photo of her not doing that. Cat tax paid ✅

the thing is that i was a teacher for a long time and sometimes i come back to this moment in the classroom where a 7 year old asked me are mermaids real? and i stared at her and had no idea how to answer.

for a really long time i just assumed that glow-in-the-dark paint/etc was a result of something made in a lab. i just recently found out that a specific mine in new jersey that just has rocks that do that naturally and it sent me for a loop about stuff.

because first of all - let's be honest, all of us: if there was going to be a naturally-occurring location for uv-activated glow-in-the-dark rocks? it would have to be in New Jersey. that's just the place that makes the most sense for that to happen. probably 10 thousand years ago cavemen were like. "oh this place is gonna be new jersey one day. this has new jersey energy."

the rocks only glow in the presence of uv light and are otherwise just normal rocks. in lord of the rings, there's a special sword that glows in the presence of orcs. it is magic, except that's a real thing that exists (and exists, as we have discussed, in new jersey, of all places). i guess maybe this implies orcs give off uv light.

yeah, okay. magic is just science. i know all the stuff about how ghosts are probably just caused by vibrating pipes. i knew about how there's a reason-for-all-of-this. but what do you mean that there's rocks that give you poison damage if you touch them. what do you mean that we live on the same planet as electric eels. what do you mean that a battery just, like - stores power?

and i don't know. in 20 years maybe they will find a mermaid but they will say something like well she's technically not a mermaid she's this other species, she has whiskers and not hair. and i will have to travel back in time and tell a 7 year old not technically, but there's something that is like a mermaid.